[squid-users] Fw: Squid 32-bit (2.7.2) much faster than

Patrick Flaherty vze2k3sa at verizon.net
Fri Dec 11 18:42:24 UTC 2015


I added the following line to my squid.conf and now Squid 3.5.11 is as fast as 2.7.2 and feels like direct internet access.

dns_v4_first on 

Thank You,

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 02:47:05 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3 at treenet.co.nz>
To: squid-users at lists.squid-cache.org
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Fw: Squid 32-bit (2.7.2) much faster than
	Squid 64-bit (3.5.11)
Message-ID: <566AD3D9.4020609 at treenet.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On 11/12/2015 10:16 p.m., TarotApprentice wrote:
> Sorry should have replied to the list.
> MarkJ
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>> From: Tarot Apprentice
>> Looking at the startup logs the 3.4.11 says "store logging disabled" (it had an error) so would account for some of the difference.

So the builds are different:

* OS integration:
Squid-2 builds from Acme being made with Visual Studio. So they have
native Windows API integration.
Squid-3 builds by Diladele are using Cgwin. So a whole OS abstraction
layer between Squid and Windows.

* HTTP 1.x:
Squid-2 is HTTP/1.0-only.
Squid-3 does HTTP/1.1 and does a whole lot more protocol processing to
detect whether 1.1 features are being used.

* X-bit:
As you already said 32-bit vs 64-bit. I read some research recently that
showed 64-bit is only faster in benchmarks when there is hardware layer
retardation being applied to emulating the 32-bit operations on the same
hardware. So YMMV.

* Features:
Squid-2 has less features than Squid-3.5. It also has less of them
enabled by default. YMMV.
 - This includes IPv6 support. Squid-3 waits for both IPv4 and IPv6
responses from DNS. Squid-2 will not be doing that.

The configs are different:

* DNS:
Squid-2 is configured to use the Windows Registry DNS servers (default).
Squid-3 is explicitly configured with dns_nameservers to override that
to use only a sub-set of the Registry listed NS.
 - if that one DNS server is running much faster than the others it can
account for a lot of speed variance.

* Cache:
Squid-2 is using a 100MB disk cache + 64MB RAM cache.
Squid-3 is using only a 256MB RAM cache.
 - Usually this should count against Squid-2 in most traffic. But if
your Squid are processing objects over 4MB size, then Squid-2 has the
advantage of storing them to HDD and fast-ish HITs later. Where Squid-3
has to MISS.

>> On 11 Dec 2015, at 12:16 PM, Patrick Flaherty wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Just following up on my slow 3.5.11 Squid server.  I loaded the 32-bit 2.7.2 version on the same box and it’s so much faster for me. Its 4 to 5 times faster for me on the same machine. Please any help appreciated. Amos, I think I cleaned up my 3.5.11 squid.conf properly. I think my 2.7.2 squid.conf needs work.
>> See below Startup Cache logs from both 3.5.11 and 2.7.2 and also the squid.conf files from 3.5.11 and 2.7.2.

Both configs look roughly equivalent to me. Except the Squid-3 config
defines localnet as being "all" then does an "allow localnet". Making it
an open proxy. The Squid-2 is at least restricted to the whitelist domains.

Though I dont think that is affecting your results. Uunless someone
figured out how to open a tunnel through it already and is using up the
bandwidth with an not-yet-logged huge transaction.


More information about the squid-users mailing list