On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:34 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > * Christos Tsantilas <christos@chtsanti.net>:
> >
> >>> But since, i had heard that Squid 2.6 version had better performance
> >>> than Squid 3.0, i would like to try that also as a backup.
> >> Squid 3 is enough fast for most cases. You will not see any difference in
> >> performance unless you have a very-very busy proxy server.
> >
> > I can confirm that. We switched from 2.6 -> 3.0 with no hassle (at 100
> > requests/s)
> >
>
> I had Adrian benchmark 3.x recently. With his specific RAM-pathways test.
>
> The cutoff for speed seems to be Squid3 reaching 500-650 req/sec and
> Squid 2.6 going past that into the 800-900 req/sec ranges. At a few
> hundred concurrent requests.
If you are not a Squid developer, it is probably better to ignore these
numbers than to rely on them.
This was a micro-level benchmark not designed to estimate or compare
overall proxy performance. Most likely, both the absolute numbers and
the relative difference will be very different in a real world or in a
realistic benchmark.
Alex.
Received on Tue Jan 29 2008 - 11:52:05 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Fri Feb 01 2008 - 12:00:05 MST