Re: [squid-users] Squid v/s Apache's reverse proxy

Hi John,

I have seen it doing 1500 +-/sec (Peaks into the 2000) without the CPU
breaking into a sweat (as in less than 10%....even 5). This is 3.1 thou
(Which I thought was slower than 2.7 ?)

Surely if it was crappy code (which it's not) the CPU would be the
bottleneck to crack 2000/sec (Unless the disks was slowing down the
caching, but again, this would be shown on IOWait time on the CPU - the
10/5% I was referring to was idle time)

Cheers,

Pieter

On 11/05/2011 06:27, Jawahar Balakrishnan (JB) wrote:
> We are evaluating a vendor who claims that their Apache proxy based
> solution performs better than Squid because squid doesn't scale on a
> multi-cpu / multi core servers whereas apache does scale nicely. Their
> tests show squid version 2.7 to perform at 2000 requests/sec while the
> apache solution performs closer 10K requests/sec and also shows the
> newer versions to be slower and is better off as a forward proxy
> solution.
>
> I would love to hear from anyone who might have done a similar
> comparison or if anyone has any thoughts on this. I definitely don't
> doubt their claims but it came as a surprise to me.
>
> Thanks
> JB
Received on Tue May 10 2011 - 19:30:51 MDT