Varnish and squid compare in the end how much stronger _ test

For the popular:
1.varnish performance is 10~20 times higher than squid
2.squid 3.0 performance is higher than 2.6
This test will reveal the results,
Does the varnish architecture really improve so much performance
Whether the new version of Squid is improving in performance
The test will not be platform. Software, etc. optimize
Because of the optimal level of the relationship will greatly affect the results.
The data in this test can be used as the baseline data.
The proportional coefficients of the optimization and the non-optimal results of the individual software can be
The comparison results are calculated by ourselves. So the impact of individual software optimization or system optimization on the whole
It can be done by the reader on its own, using the baseline data for extrapolation.
Pages of a Web site
I will Taobao's home page to get to the local
As a Test object
Test page Download
Index_files

Platform:
PROXY:
CentOS 5.1 Minimal Installation
Wave NF190
Xeon 2.8
1G RAM
73G SCSI
Squid 2.6,squid 3.0,varnish 1.1.2

Web:
CentOS 5.1 Minimal Installation
Wave NF180
Xeon 2.8
1G RAM
73G SCSI
Nginx 0.6.31

CLIENT:
CentOS 5.1 Minimal Installation
Wave NF260
Xeon 2.4
512M RAM
36G SCSI
http_load-12mar2006

SWITCH:
DLink DES 1024r+

1.SQUID 2.6
Compilation parameters./Configure--prefix =/usr/local/squid26

Configuration file Visible_hostname test2. Hiadmin. Com
Http_port Accel Vhost Vport
Cache_peer 192.168.210.111 Parent 0 no-query originserver name = Test1
ACL all src 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0
Http_access Allow all
Cache_log/var/log/squid26/cache. Log

2.Squid 3.0
Compilation parameters./Configure--prefix =/usr/local/squid30

Configuration file Visible_hostname test2. Hiadmin. Com
Http_port Accel Vhost Vport
Cache_peer 192.168.210.111 Parent 0 no-query originserver name = Test1
ACL all src 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0
Http_access Allow all
Cache_log/var/log/squid30/cache. Log

3.Varnish 1.1.2
Compilation parameters./Configure--prefix =/usr/local/varnish

Configuration file Backend Default {
Set backend. Host = "192.168.210.111";
Set backend. Port = "80";
}

Run parameters varnishd-f/Usr/local/varnish/default. Vcl-a 0.0.0.0:80

4.Nginx 0.6.31
Compilation parameters./Configure--prefix =/Usr/local/nginx

Configuration file worker_processes   10;
Events   {
    worker_connections   1024;
}
http   {
    include   mime. types;
    default_type   Application/octet-stream;
    sendfile   on;
    keepalive_timeout   65;
    server   {
    listen   80;
    server_name   localhost;
    location  /  {
    root   html;
    index   index. HTML   index. htm;
   }
    error_page     502   503   504  /x. html;
    location  =/x. html   {
    root   html;
   }
   }
}

5.http_load
Run parameters./http_load-parallel 1000-seconds URLs. Txt
URLs. Txt
http://192.168.210.222/index.html

6.SQUID 2.7
Compilation parameters./Configure--prefix =/usr/local/squid27

Configuration file Visible_hostname test2. Hiadmin. Com
Http_port Accel Vhost Vport
Cache_peer 192.168.210.111 Parent 0 no-query originserver name = Test1
ACL all src 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0
Http_access Allow all
Cache_log/var/log/squid27/cache. Log

Test results

Dot image magnification
The light yellow in the icon is 500 for the client to appear only once or several times during the crawl process
Orange is more frequent for 500 crawl errors
Red for almost every time there are 500 crawl errors
It's worth noting that Squid 3.0
The number of 500 occurrences in 500 concurrent connections is many
But the crawl failure rate dropped when you were 1000.

CPU and memory occupancy rate

Dot image magnification
Varnish has maintained good CPU and memory usage
But by the time the 1000 concurrent numbers
You'll find CPU usage up to 103%.
That's right. I didn't make a mistake. In 5 tests, Varnish's 1000 concurrency test has been hovering between 101~103 and the CPU occupancy rate.
It may be that varnish's connection pool isn't particularly good. When larger than varnish processing, more CPU resources are used to process
Squid 3.0 seems to be a big spender of CPU and memory.
may be related to newer versions and more features (although nothing in this case is useless)
Squid 2.6 maintains a good posture, stable CPU occupancy and memory footprint. This shows why the most used in the market is the reason for it.

More details can be downloaded from this form
Varnish-vs-squid3

Although Varnish has a surprising CPU footprint (and surprisingly more than processing power)
But the surge in memory and CPU usage when dealing with oversized links is not satisfying
But it shows a fetchs/second at the maximum load.
It's actually about 8% higher than squid 2.6.
The experiment shows that, in a more stable production environment, varnish can not replace the old generation of squid 2.6
But it has already posed a significant challenge to squid 3.0.
If Squid 3.0 doesn't deliver better performance and stability than his products
It is possible that the throne of the best reverse agent will be varnish.
No matter what
The subject of this test. Varnish is 10 times times or 20 times times more likely to perform than squid.
proved impossible to achieve.
Although the test data volume full of 100M bandwidth may affect the accuracy of the test.
But the number of simultaneous connections brought about by higher bandwidth is likely to explode the CPU and memory of the varnish host.

Conclusion
1.varnish in high load at the cost of CPU and memory, compared to squid 2.6 increase by 8%, but is not 10 times times 20 times times.
2.squid 3.0 performance is lower than 2.6. Rather than higher. Instead, 3.0 is the least stable and the worst performing.
3.SQUID 2.7 Performance is lower than 2.6, but CPU and memory occupancy rates are better controlled.

====================================================== Squid 2.6 2.7 3.0 3.1 and Varnish 2.1.5 performance comparison test

Http://www.cnblogs.com/littlehb/archive/2012/02/21/2360787.html

Description

Use the stress test software siege,http_load to test these agent software, testing different sizes of files and various concurrent numbers.

Squid version selection, taking into account the actual use of some of the requirements, and reference to some other articles (

For example: http://www.php-oa.com/2009/12/02/cache%e8%bd%af%e4%bb%b6%e7%89%88%e6%9c%ac%e9%80%89%e6%8b%a9.html

), did not choose to compare the old squid 2.5.

Clear the file cache and restart the agent software before each test.

This test serves only as a data reference and does not fully simulate the complex network requests (requests, file requests of various sizes) in the production environment.

First, test environment:

Hardware: Intel Xeon E5410 @ 2.33GHz * 2,16g memory, SATA 500G * 4 (RAID 10)

Install Squid 2.7

./configure-prefix=/opt/squid2.7-enable-xmalloc-statistics--enable-async-io=320--with-maxfd=65536- Enable-useragent-log-enable-referer-log-enable-epoll-disable-poll-enable-large-cache-files- Disable-internal-dns-enable-linux-netfilter-enable-truncate-enable-x-accelerator-vary- enable-follow-x-forwarded-for-with-large-files-with-pthreads-enable-storeio= "Aufs,coss,diskd,ufs"- Enable-kill-parent-hack-enable-gnuregex-enable-cache-digests-enable-delay-pools-enable-stacktraces- enable-default-err-language=simplify_chinese-enable-err-languages= "Simplify_chinese 中文版"--enable-auth= " Basic "--enable-basic-auth-helpers=" NCSA "--enable-snmp

Attention:

1, do not use-enable-dlmalloc This compilation parameters, or run for a period of time will be the error FATAL:xcalloc:Unable to allocate 1 blocks of 4112 bytes!

Reference:

Http://www.mail-archive.com/squid-users@squid-cache.org/msg48804.html

Http://www.mail-archive.com/squid-users@squid-cache.org/msg40839.html

The general meaning is that dlmalloc is squid in some system itself malloc too bad situation substitution scheme, Dlmalloc is already very old, and does not support 2G above memory (more interesting is used Squid 3.0 also used this parameter, but normal operation, Memory usage is configured over 10G, and possibly 3.0 has special processing compatible with this compilation configuration.

Squid 3 Compilation Parameters:

www:/srv#/opt/squid3/sbin/squid-v

Squid cache:version 3.0.stable25

Configure options: '--prefix=/opt/squid3 '--enable-dlmalloc '--enable-gnuregex '--enable-async-io=160 ' Enable-removal-policies=heap,lru '--enable-delay-pools '--enable-storeio=ufs,aufs,null '--DISABLE-WCCP '-- Enable-kill-parent-hack '--disable-select '--enable-auth=basic '--with-aio '--disable-ident-lookup ' with-filedescriptors=65536 '--enable-err-languages=simplify_chinese '--enable-default-err-languages=simplify_ Chinese '

The 3.1 compilation parameters are basically the same as 3.0.

Squid Several versions use basically the same squid.conf, performance related to several configurations as follows:

Cache_mem 4000 MB

maximum_object_size_in_memory MB KB

#cache_dir

Cache_dir Aufs/srv/squid_cache 20480 16 256

Maximum_object_size 4096 KB

Varnish:

Tar zxf varnish-2.1.5.tar.gz

CD varnish-2.1.5

./configure--prefix=/opt/varnish

Run Parameters:

/opt/varnish/sbin/varnishd-u www-g www-f/opt/varnish/etc/varnish/aipai.vcl-a 0.0.0.0:8080-s file,/srv/varnish_ Cache/cache/varnish_cache.data,1g-w 1024,51200,10-t 3600-t 0.0.0.0:30000

Second, test results:

60s per Test

Test command: Siege-b-C 100-t 60s URL

The data recorded in the table is: Transaction rate, Unit: request/S

Typical test results:

da01:~/siege-2.69# Siege-b-C 500-t 60s http://www.aipai.com:8080/about/map.html

* * Siege 2.69

* * Preparing concurrent users for battle.

The server is now under siege ...

Lifting the server siege ... done.

transactions:653211 Hits

availability:100.00%

Elapsed time:59.35 secs

Data transferred:1238.43 MB

Response time:0.05 secs//average corresponding time

Transaction rate:11006.08 trans/sec/sec processing speed per second, request/s

throughput:20.87 mb/sec//Network throughput

concurrency:498.86//Maximum concurrent number

Successful transactions:653212//number of successful processing

Failed transactions:0//failure handling number

Longest transaction:3.01//maximum request processing time

Shortest transaction:0.00

For a detailed description of the test results, interested friends please refer to Siege's documentation, which is already labeled with a few key data.

Test 1:

Target url:http://www.aipai.com:8080/about/map.html, test small file request, File size: 6221 byte

Concurrent 10

Concurrent 100

Concurrent 500

Concurrent 1000

Squid 2.6 STABLE23

8207

11211

11016

10451

Squid 2.7 STABLE9

8261

11409

11006

10002

Squid 3.0 STABLE25

8524

9762

8138

8768

Squid 3.1.11

6421

6832

5990

5834

Varnish 2.1.5

10875

10251

11459

11412

Ps:siege using more than 1000 concurrent errors will be an error.

Test 2:

Target url:http://www.aipai.com:8080/c7/pjg_kscqimgnaiys.html, test our website typical page request, File size: 75356 byte

Concurrent 10

Concurrent 100

Concurrent 500

Concurrent 1000

Squid 2.6 STABLE23

4554

6382

6625

6696 (4 failed)

Squid 2.7 STABLE9

4164

6234

6565

6588

Squid 3.0 STABLE25

4366

5315

5190

5153

Squid 3.1.11

3697

4217

4357

4075

Varnish 2.1.5

6618

6781

6775

5714

Test 1, Test 2 summary:

Test 1, Test 2 is a URL to the pressure, the main test mem_hit software processing capacity.

1, squid 2.6 in the Squid group is basically the fastest, in the test 2 concurrent 1000 when the start is not very stable, there are 4 connection timed out.

2, Squid 2.7 of the results and 2.6 in a horizontal line, slightly less.

3, squid from 3.0 began to rewrite with C + +, now it seems that the performance gap with the 2.7/2.6 is still very obvious, 3.1 from the performance point of view than 3.0 worse (squid brother, not for the function loss too much performance AH).

4, varnish in most of the test is in the lead, some projects poor (varnish test results are not very stable, there are some swing). Varnish performance is better than squid, but it is far from what some articles claim to be 10 times times as squid.

Test 3:

Further simulation of the production environment, from the actual running Squid access log intercepted 50,000 URLs to test.

Each test is extended to 2 minutes.

Concurrent 10

Concurrent 100

Concurrent 500

Concurrent 1000

Squid 2.6 STABLE23

2839

5485

6722

6604

Squid 2.7 STABLE9

2981

5215

6789

6742

Squid 3.0 STABLE25

2863

4294

4345

3859

Squid 3.1.11

2682