Fix the squid package {completed}
-
Just tried it again both ways, checked and unchecked on 'Throttle only specific extensions'…no change.
-
Are you by any case heeting swap?!
I mean, is swap getting used?!
-
The top output on my 1.2RC3 box that is working properly shows 100k of swap in use. The 1.2RC5 with the new squid package just shows 1024M available, 1024M free. Perhaps you're on to something.
-
Can you please post the generated squid.conf.
-
Here are two squid.conf, one from our working box and one from the new slower box. I have tested with only two interfaces on different boxes and see the same result. I have the newer box in non-transparent mode so the few people who use it won't have to put up with the slowness.
squid.conf.2.6.5.pf.1.2.rc3.txt
squid.conf.2.6.18.pf.1.2.rc5.txt -
So basically the differences are:
diff squid.conf.2.6.5.pf.1.2.rc3.txt squid.conf.2.6.18.pf.1.2.rc5.txt
1c1
http_access deny allto be sureterface(s)nsacl/blacklist.acl"s.acl"025-65535
\ No newline at end of file
–-
http_access deny allto be sureterface(s)nsquid/acl/throttle_exts.acl"-65535
\ No newline at end of file -
The diff related to throttle went away after I changed the box for 'Throttle only specific extensions'. The do not cache entries are diff because there are no donotcache entries on the 2.6.18 box. Other than that, they look the same to me, aside from a couple of cache size cfg and IP changes.
-
He means to ask if you are running into swap space. I asume you are not since you are on a Dual core machine and likely have atleast 1GB of ram.
Can you try using the single processor kernel and see if the problem persists?
-
Is there an easier way to change kernel besides reinstall?
-
Mount the install CD (or copy the kernel to a USB key), backup the old kernel, copy the new one off the CD, reboot.
-
I bet it can be found in CVSweb as well, right?
Anyone point me to the right link (still have my problems with this versioning system…) -
Hi!
I am having the same squid slow transfer problems on my institution.
I have a dual-wan system: one 25 MBps cable connection on WAN for internet access and one institutional adsl 1MBps on WAN OPT3 (also has internet access using another gateway).
The OPT3 is connected to a 1GBps switch and has a public IP (we have 32 public ips for mail, webpage, etc… and a cisco router).
If I download a huge file from our servers (connected on the WAN OPT3 interface) I can easily get 11000 MBytes/sec from our internal lan's, passing through squid.
Nevertheless, accessing the internet (through the cable connection on WAN) I can get maximum 50Kbytes/sec using squid and 2000KBytes/sec using only NAT and proxy off.
Why using the same squid traffic is slow in one interface and normal on another?Strangely if I discard the cable connection, deactivate WAN OPT3, and connect the 1MBps connection on WAN interface, I can get the full speed of it, downloading at about 200Kbytes/sec from the internet.
Can it be the different modems? On the cable I have a regular Motorola modem, and on the institucional I have a much higher quality adsl modem.
Can it be the NIC? When using cable we connect it to pfsense using a 100MBps 3Com card (xl driver) and the 1Mbps is on one VLAN that enters in pfsense throug a Intel PRO1000 (em driver) together with our internal networks...Can anyone shed some light on this problem? I am liking a lot pfsense, but I cannot have squid turned on because of such slow transfers!
Yours,
Antonio Paulino -
OK - finally got a chance to try 1.2 release on matching HW to our 1.2rc3 fully functional box. Clean install, no changes except to add squid and setup the WAN interface. Before squid I was getting 2.7 mbit, after squid barely 300kbit. This is a single core kernel, pIII 1.7 w/ 1 gb ram, 80gb hd and one 3com, one intel NIC.
-
I can confirm. Fresh install of 1.2. Nothing but squid running, latest package as of last night.
With transparent enabled, on our dual-bonded T1 here, I get 600-1100Kbit.
Disabled, I get ~ the full 3Mbit.Running Pentium D architecture, with SMP kernel.
I monitored CPU usage with top. No difference. 99% idle either way.
Not good.
-
any update on this?
Cheers.
-
I'm holding my breath that it may not be an issue with FreeBSD 7/pfSense 1.3b. For now it looks like it's wait and see as nobody is actively working on a solution.
-
NEED TEST
Looks like the throughput issue may have resolved itself in the FreeBSD 6.3 build of pfSense 1.2_RELEASE. I have had success with the new build, please let us know if you see improvements as well.
http://cvs.pfsense.org/~sullrich/testing_images/6/FreeBSD_RELENG_6_3/pfSense_RELENG_1_2/ -
NEED TEST
Looks like the throughput issue may have resolved itself in the FreeBSD 6.3 build of pfSense 1.2_RELEASE. I have had success with the new build, please let us know if you see improvements as well.
http://cvs.pfsense.org/~sullrich/testing_images/6/FreeBSD_RELENG_6_3/pfSense_RELENG_1_2/Hi there,
I just installed the version linked above with only squid package installed and can't confirm any changes related to this problem.
The machine is a Celeron 700 MHz, 512MB RAM and 20GB HDD.
Without Squid I can reach the full 8 Mbit/s of my connection. With active Squid the troughput drops down to approx. 5,5Mbit/s.
I'll continue testing this version. -
Interesting…we only have 3MBit of bandwidth and don't see ANY difference between squid or direct.
-
Well i do not think that your machine parameters can handle that speed with squid without some more tweaking to either squid or pfSense itself.
One interesting tweak would be to mount the filesystem with the noatime option by setting it on /etc/fstab.
Another somewhat risky would be to add the async to those option for the filesystem but this the later option is somewhat risky.Ermal
