RE: [squid-users] accel mode and peering

From: Dave A King <daking@dont-contact.us>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:44:33 -0700

> Hardware LB in front of the squids is good, but consider
> having the squids
> handle the backend balancing on their own (as parent caches
> or with the
> new rproxy patches
> (http://squid.sourceforge.net/rproxy/backend.html)).
> The squids are very good at detecting overloads and downings and
> reassign the request. It also reduces the load on the LB switch.

interesting, I'll take a look at that...
 
> If maximum caching is the goal, that will help. Keep in
> mind, though,
> that by the time you send, receive, and react to ICP, you've
> added a heap
> of latency to that request. (That's fine on the client end,
> where a hit
> at almost any cost is faster than contacting the origin server for a
> miss.) Assuming the front-end caches have enough space for your most
> popular files, letting them act alone will drastically
> improve response
> time with only a minor impact on the overall hit rate.

unfortunately each cache server's capacity will only hold a portion of the
popular files. latency is not as much of an issue as maximum amount of
content cached.
 
> What do your cache_peer and cache_peer_access lines look like?

on 10.1.8.111:
--------------
cache_peer 10.1.8.112 sibling 80 3130 proxy-only
cache_peer_access 10.1.8.112 allow all

on 10.1.8.112:
--------------
cache_peer 10.1.8.111 sibling 80 3130 proxy-only
cache_peer_access 10.1.8.111 allow all

still getting no ICP traffic...
 
-d-
Received on Fri Aug 31 2001 - 12:49:42 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:01:57 MST