Talk:Squids
(Varnish as an alternative?) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Squid on SMP == | == Squid on SMP == | ||
Running Squid on true SMP machines is quite inefficient. When examining Ganglia, it is clear that most Kennisnet Squids flat out at 50% CPU usage, so basicly one CPU is being wasted. The same will probably be true with the Yahoo cluster, when it gets a heavy load. | Running Squid on true SMP machines is quite inefficient. When examining Ganglia, it is clear that most Kennisnet Squids flat out at 50% CPU usage, so basicly one CPU is being wasted. The same will probably be true with the Yahoo cluster, when it gets a heavy load. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Varnish as an alternative? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Norwegian newspaper had 10 squids in their service, but decided that this was inefficient. They therefore sponsored the development of Varnish, a modern alternative to Squid that among other things can utilize SMP machines. The new system is in production, and apparently they reduced their need to 1 server plus backup, plus giving faster response times (It's just a feeling, but I think I've noticed this myself). | ||
| + | |||
| + | [http://varnish.projects.linpro.no] | ||
| + | |||
| + | I don't know much about this stuff myself, but if such large reduction in servers are possible, this should be considered as a serious alternative to Squid for Wikimedia. -- [[User:Larsivi|Larsivi]] 09:19, 17 November 2006 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 17:19, 17 November 2006
Squid on SMP
Running Squid on true SMP machines is quite inefficient. When examining Ganglia, it is clear that most Kennisnet Squids flat out at 50% CPU usage, so basicly one CPU is being wasted. The same will probably be true with the Yahoo cluster, when it gets a heavy load.
Varnish as an alternative?
The Norwegian newspaper had 10 squids in their service, but decided that this was inefficient. They therefore sponsored the development of Varnish, a modern alternative to Squid that among other things can utilize SMP machines. The new system is in production, and apparently they reduced their need to 1 server plus backup, plus giving faster response times (It's just a feeling, but I think I've noticed this myself).
I don't know much about this stuff myself, but if such large reduction in servers are possible, this should be considered as a serious alternative to Squid for Wikimedia. -- Larsivi 09:19, 17 November 2006 (PST)
