[FUG-BR] Fwd: Tunning no Squid

[William Armstrong]

só completando

desculpem o anexo mas  é  bem interessante  para o assunto abordado



D.4 FreeBSD

FreeBSD is another popular Squid platform, and my personal favorite.
Table D-2 and Figure D-2

summarize the results for FreeBSD. Again, coss exhibits the highest
throughput, followed by

diskd. The aufs storage scheme doesn't currently run on FreeBSD. These
results come from

FreeBSD Version 4.8-STABLE (released April 3, 2003). I built a kernel
with the following

noteworthy options:

options MSGMNB=16384

options MSGMNI=41

options MSGSEG=2049

options MSGSSZ=64

options MSGTQL=512

options SHMSEG=16

options SHMMNI=32

options SHMMAX=2097152

options SHMALL=4096

options MAXFILES=8192

options NMBCLUSTERS=32768

options VFS_AIO

Table D-2. FreeBSD benchmarking results

Storage

scheme Filesystem Mount options Throughput Response time Hit ratio

coss      330.7 1.58 54.5

diskd(1) UFS async, noatime, softupdate 129.0 1.58 54.1

diskd(2) UFS         77.4 1.47 56.2

ufs(1) UFS async, noatime, softupdate 38.0 1.49 56.8

ufs(2) UFS noatime 31.1 1.54 55.0

ufs(3) UFS async 30.2 1.51 55.9

ufs(4) UFS softupdate 29.9 1.51 55.7

ufs(5) UFS                    24.4 1.50 56.4

Figure D-2. FreeBSD filesystem benchmarking traces



Enabling the async, noatime , and softupdate[3] options boosts the
standard ufs performance

from 24 to 38 transactions per second. However, using one of the other
storage schemes

increases the sustainable throughput even more.

[3] On FreeBSD, softupdates aren't a mount option, but must be set with the

tunefs command.

FreeBSD's diskd performance (129/sec) isn't quite as good as on Linux
(169/sec), perhaps

because the underlying filesystem (ext2fs) is better.

Note that the trace for coss is relatively flat. Its performance
doesn't change much over time.

Furthermore, both FreeBSD and Linux report similar throughput numbers:
326/sec and 331/

sec. This leads me to believe that the disk system isn't a bottleneck
in these tests. In fact, the

test with no disk cache (see Section D.8) achieves essentially the
same throughput (332/sec).







--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
William David Armstrong
Bio Systems Security.
ICQ 10253747 MSN bio__wolf em hotmail.com
--------------------------------------
<----.     Of course it runs
<----|============================
<----' NetBSD, OpenBSD or FreeBSD
--------------------------------------
-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
_______________________________________________
Freebsd mailing list
Freebsd em fug.com.br
http://mail.fug.com.br/mailman/listinfo/freebsd_fug.com.br