Re: [squid-users] squid loadbalancing cluster -- best practice

From: Amos Jeffries <>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:44:42 +1200 (NZST)

> Hi Everyone,
> Nowadays I am planning building a load-balanced squid + web nodes cluster.
> The detailed information:
> Operating System: Linux 2.6.9
> Squid-2.6-Stable-15

I'd highly recommend upgrading your requirements a little:

Linux 2.6.22+ (Ideally 2.6.24, but that may still be too cutting-edge for
high-performance use, and 2.6.20 is the minimum for a number of apps)

Squid 2.6.stable19

> Here we have two options:
> squidA + Apache1
> Lvs +
> squidB + Apache2
> (Lvs = linux virtual server)
> SquidA forms sibling relationship with SquidB using ICP.
> Apache1 is parent (original server) to SquidA.
> Apache2 is parent (original server) to SquidB.
> The other is
> Squid-parentA + apahce1
> Squid-child +
> Squid-parentB + apahce2
> Squild-child round robins Squid-parentA and Squid-parentB.
> Anybody has any suggestions on the two options?
> Which is better of the two implementations?

That depends on your expected traffic volumes and speed requirements. I
have a vague idea what you mean by LVS. You mean using DNS to round-robin
the A-record IPs and just point at a CNAME right?

For highest performance and reliability I'd pick the first option unless
there was some other topology feature that obsoletes the reliability edge.

  current squid production releases are proven only to around 800req/sec.
So below that either setup is equally effective. But above that the
first proposal will be better for you.

 The second config leaves you with a single-point bottleneck which may at
some point fail. If it does it takes out access to the child proxies.

Received on Mon Apr 07 2008 - 22:44:47 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu May 01 2008 - 12:00:04 MDT