On 03/04/11 12:52, david_at_lang.hm wrote:
> still no response from anyone.
>
> Is there any interest in investigating this issue? or should I just
> write off squid for future use due to it's performance degrading?
It is a very ambiguous issue..
* We have your report with some nice rate benchmarks indicating regression
* We have two others saying me-too with less details
* We have an independent report indicating that 3.1 is faster than
2.7. With benchmarks to prove it.
* We have several independent reports indicating that 3.2 is faster
than 3.1. One like yours with benchmark proof.
* We have someone responding to your report saying the CPU type
affects things in a large way (likely due to SMP using CPU-level features)
* We have our own internal testing which shows also a mix of results
with the variance being dependent on which component of Squid is tested.
Your test in particular is testing both the large object pass-thru
(proxy only) capacity and the parser CPU ceiling.
Could you try your test on 3.2.0.6 and 3.1.12 please? They both now have
a server-facing buffer change which should directly affect your test
results in a good way.
Amos
-- Please be using Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.12 Beta testers wanted for 3.2.0.6Received on Mon Apr 04 2011 - 05:35:06 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Apr 04 2011 - 12:00:01 MDT