trafficserver-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alvin Alexander <al...@pesat.net.id>
Subject Re: ATS questions
Date Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:21:10 GMT
With such hardware, it's highly recommended that you move to ATS from 
Squid :)

My move from Squid to ATS :
- CentOS 64-bit with TPROXY support custom kernel ; stop Squid, install ATS.
- TPROXY works with "CONFIG proxy.config.http.server_port_attr STRING 
=", no other kernel params changes than those with Squid.
- Sit back and relax. :)

Regards,
  Alvin


On 02/06/2011 12:25, Steve Cole wrote:
> I have a network based on L4 intercept using two squid servers that are
> currently working quite well overall, but don't have a great deal of room to
> progress given their workload and squid's limitations to do with scalability
> and TPS.
>
> The boxes:
>
> dual quad-core xeons @ 2.4Ghz
> 48GB memory
> 12 x 15,000 rpm 128GB drives
> dual gigabit ethernet
>
> At present, the machines are set up with a large number of kernel params
> tweaked and the squid process caches approximately 20GB of hot objects in
> memory along with about 19GB of drive cache (proc size of 27GB).   Peak
> balanced load is in the neighbourhood of 1,000 requests per second between the
> two machines, which use HTCP to peer.
>
> I use virtually none of the content management features.  Just caching.
>
> Given the HTTP 1.1 capabilities of ATS, the more efficient storage system and
> the higher scalability of the software, I'm considering moving to ATS to get
> around the painfully slow speed of squid development and the painfully bad
> HTTP 1.1 support along with lack of some features like range requests.
>
> I'm aware that ATS is not a 1:1 drop-in, however it appears to do what I need
> a cache to do: serve up content quickly, with low latency, and cache anything
> that could potentially speed up the response time of the web.
>
> So on to the questions:
>
> I do not see any documentation on using the tproxy capabilities of 2.1x, are
> they available for me to test my implementation?
>
> Are there any kernel params that traffic server likes vs. squid?  This made a
> sizable difference in scalabilty in squid, FWIW.
>
> Can ATS make good use of so much RAM (is it 64-bit aware?)  Obviously disk
> cache will not help since ATS uses raw devices in my desired implementation.
>
> Has anyone built a system with ATS to such high specs for a forwarding proxy?
>
> If anyone has, are there any tips for cache freshness&  retention to share?
>
> Will there be a Debian package soon/ever?  I'd prefer this just for testing
> purposes more than anything...!
>
> Are there any benchmarks done on given hardware between Squid and ATS with
> regards to content freshness, response times, scalability and overall
> throughput for forwarding proxy?
>
> If I find that ATS does what I need it to do, I'd like to step up and help
> somehow.  Perhaps documentation, as I'm no coder.  FYI.
>
> Thanks for the time, should anyone decide to help me out.
>


Mime
View raw message