Re: [squid-users] IDE performance

Thanks Chris,

Seems IDE is powerfull enough for my environment.

Thx & Rgds,

Awie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Wilcox" <not_rich_yet@hotmail.com>
To: <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] IDE performance

>
> >
> >All,
> >
> >I just curios about UltraATA (IDE) performance, as now the high speed of
> >UltraATA 133 is already exist.
> >
> >Does someone try to use UltraATA for big Bandwidth and high request? If
> >yes,
> >how big and how high is it?
>
> Our cache was provided by our ISP. Alongside simply caching it also
handles
> blacklist based filtering which I'm guessing is done via SquidGuard.
>
> We have potentially 130 simultaneous users on a 100Mbit switched network.
> Our internet connection is provided by a 2Mbit DSL line (2Mbit up and
down).
> Cache spec is roughly:
>
> P4 1.6 Ghz
> 512MB RAM
> 40GB IDE HD which I think will be ATA-100 and 7200rpm
>
> The difference between ATA-100 and ATA-133 is negligible usually, since
this
> is the external interface speed. I'd look more at seek times and internal
> transfer times, as seek time will possibly have a bigger effect on
> performance for a heavily used cache, this is why SCSI is best for very
> heavy usage since seek times are way quicker than IDE (usually!).
>
> You'll see big benefits if you use multiple cache disks, since often the
> disk speed etc is the limiting factor with squid as opposed to CPU power.
> More RAM will also help out.
>
> If you plan to use IDE, I'd go for a 7200rpm (or higher if they exist
yet?)
> drive, with an 8MB (or higher) buffer. Usually bigger disks give a better
> performance due to data density on the platters but check some reviews out
> first.
>
> Still, this all depends on the planned network on which you're cache will
be
> running!
>
> Regards,
>
> nry
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.
> http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess
>
Received on Mon Oct 20 2003 - 20:09:12 MDT