Comparative Analysis of Performance Proxy Server
Using Algorithms Greedy Dual Size Frequency
(GDSF) and Least Recently Used (LRU) Network
Internet at Pondok Pesantren Yasin Kudus
Ivandi Julatha Putra, Ari Sriyanto Nugroho, Sri Anggraeni Kadiran
Department of Electrical Engineering
Polytechnic State Semarang
Semarang, Indonesia
ivandijulatha @ yahoo.com, ari.sriyanto@polines.ac.id, rinikadiran67@yahoo.co.id
Abstract- In realizing pengingkatan Internet access needs of
the Pondok Pesantren Yasin Kudus facilitated network
infrastructure. The network infrastructure is equipped with a
proxy server that also serves as a proxy cache. Algorithms cache
removal is necessary as a method to remove the cache
automatically to keep the cache still has room for new objects in
the cache. There are various types of algorithms deletion deletion
while each algorithm has the properties of each. Therefore we
need the proper selection and deletion algorithms in accordance
with the requirements of access to the Pondok Pesantren Yasin
Kudus network. This final project contains a comparative
analysis algorithms Greedy Dual Size Frequency (GDSF) and
algorithms based on Least Recently Used (LRU) based on the
parameters of the hit ratio, byte hit ratio, response time and size
distribution. Tool used SquidAnalyzer, Calamaris and SARG,
the value of the average hit ratio LRU with 19.22% scenario, the
average hit ratio GDSF by 27.28%, while the average hit ratio is
taken directly LRU 16.53 %, the average hit ratio directly GDSF
5.77%, the average byte hit ratio LRU with a scenario of 30.99%,
the average byte hit ratio is the scenario GDSF 40.30%, the
average byte hit ratio LRU is taken directly by 13.93%, the
average byte hit ratio GDSF directly 10.10%, obtained an
average response time of 4,075,491 LRU scenario millisec, the
average value of response time in the scenario GDSF 6010. 538
millisec, the average value of the response time is taken directly
LRU 197 088 588 millisec, the average value of response time
directly GDSF 182 147 206 millisec. Size distribution LRU
showed a tendency to save objects by size and popularity. While
the size distribution showed a tendency to maximize GDSF small
object that is popular and minimize the large object that popular.
By looking at the ratio of the value that exists when the maximum
object enlarged from 10 MB to 500 MB performance of algorimta
GDSF the better Based on a comparative analysis algorithm
cache removal to the scenario as well as directly when students
use the Internet access, as well as considering the activity of the
client in the network Pondok Pesantren Yasin Kudus, the LRU
algorithm chosen as the best cache removal algorithms ..
Keywords- Proxy Server;Cache Replacement; LRU;GDSF;
1
I. BACKGROUND
In today's modern era of information and communication
technology are necessary, especially in the internet service. At
the boarding school, students are young people who in the
future will color the life of the nation. As one component of
the younger generation, students also have to and master the
latest technological developments, including information
technology and communications.
In the field of information and communication
technologies, today Pesantren YASIN have subscribed to
Internet access at an Internet Service Provider (ISP) with a
bandwidth of 3 Mbps. With the number of students currently
about 216 people, which is not too large bandwidth is sorely
lacking when done accessing the rush hour, the afternoon after
school until the afternoon before Maghrib time. This is what
makes the Internet feels slow because by using only a small
bandwidth but the number of clients who are very much the
very high load.
In order to optimize the network infrastructure of the
Internet is built, then use a proxy server as bridging the
internal network to the Internet network lodge. By utilizing a
proxy cache server that can serve to save the Internet data
through it. In time these data are requested again by the same
client or another client have its on the proxy server. Proxy
server does not need to retrieve data from a web server source
but simply take the data from the cache that have been stored
on the proxy server itself.
However, if the existing cache storage space on the proxy
server has a capacity that is fixed so there will be storage on
the proxy cache has been filled up with objects. It is thus
necessary the removal of objects in the cache or so-called
cache replacement policy [1]. In this case there are several
kinds of algorithms such as Greedy Dual Size Frequency
(GDSF) and Least Recently Used (LRU).
 Proxy Server acts as a gateway to access the Internet for proxy server. With scenarios in pengakesannya it will look
each computer on the network. Proxy servers are not seen by perfomansi of the two algorithms are. 5 Laptops used as a
the client computer. A user who interacts with the Internet via medium for data capture and each laptop to access the website
10 different. Here is a list of web diguanakan table for the
a proxy server will not be aware that a proxy server is
scenario.
handling requests accomplishments [2].
Table 1. List web scenario used
Previously been many studies that discuss the proxy PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5
server, one of which is the implementation of the proxy server www.detik www.polin http://wiki.sq http : http://edition.
.com es.ac.id uid- //www.liputa cnn.com/
as a cache replacement policy by comparing the best algorithm (accessed (accessed cache.org/ n6.com/ (accessed 1x)
based on testing of algorithms GDSF or algorithms LFUDA 10x) 6x) (accessed 2x) (accessed 7x)
on the network intenet wholesale markets Setono pekalogan http://www http://www. http://www.q http://www.tri http://squidan
the measured parameter hit ratio, byte hit ratio , response .kompas.co lazada.co id q.com/ bunnews.com alyzer.darold.
m/ / (accessed (accessed 1x) / (accessed net/ (accessed
time, and size distribution [1]. Even so, with a network of (accessed 5x) 8x) 6x)
wholesale markets implemented on pekalongan Setono are 2x)
other determining factors such as the test conditions, the http : http://indox http://www.su http://www.b http://www.bi
effects of proxy server configuration and using that disk space //www.viv xi.net/ ara.com/ ola.com / ng.com/
for the cache. a.co.id/ (accessed (accessed 7x) (accessed 7x) (accessed 1x)
(accessed 7x)
7x)
Other journals that discuss the cache replacement http://www http://www. http: / http://snapfile http://wallpap
algorithm to perform testing of 3 algorithm is GDSF, LFUDA .pulsk.com imdb.com/ /www.goal.co s.com/ ercave.com/
/ (accessed (accessed m/id-ID/ (accessed 1x) (accessed 5x)
andLRU. Then to conclude the algorithm which has a 1x) 3x) (accessed 4x)
maximum performance, the required variables or parameters http://dikti. http://filehi http://www.b http://www.o http:
of research as a method of comparison is shown through the go.id/ ( ppo.com/ bc.com/ kezone.com/ //www.wowk
analysis of squid are Cache Cache manager and Calamaris. accessible (accessed (accessed 5x) (accessed 9x) eren .com /
8x) 10x) (accessed 2x)
Comparative parameters used to evaluate the performance of http://www Http://www http://www.el http://www.to http: // www
the cache replacement algorithm that is Request Hit Ratio, .beritasatu. .metrotvne evenia.co.id/ urnamentsoft .livescore.co
Byte Hit Ratio, and Median Service Time [3]. However, in com/ ws.com/ (accessed 2x) ware.com/ m / (accessed
this journal a very little number of users so that research (accessed (accessed (accessed 3x) 3x)
1x ) 1x)
results have a narrow scope, and not enough data to prove the
http://jiathi http://www. http://www.c http : http://www.g
effectiveness of the use of GDSF as the best algorithm. s.com/ sciencedire hange.org/ //www.ubaya. unadarma.ac.i
(accessed ct.com/ (accessed 4x) ac.id/ d/ (accessed
In this study, we propose the performance of Proxy Server 2x) (accessed (accessed 1x) 5x)
3x)
is implemented on the Internet network Pondok Pesantren
http://www http: // http://www.id http://www.la http: // www.
Yasin Kudus using GDSF algorithm or LRU algorithm as a .indonesia.t www.fujits .undp.org/ mudi.co.id/ bhinneka.com
cache removal. The purpose of this study was to determine the ravel/en u.com/id/ (accessed 1x) (accessed 1x) / (accessed
performance of the proxy server in serving our clients and see (accessed (accessed 1x)
the effectiveness of a cache removal using one of the 5x) 3x)
http://www http://www. http://www.jp http://www.pi http://www.so
algorithms to be applied to the net Pondok Pesantren Yasin .indonetwo indiatimes. nn.com/ kiran- lopos.com/
Kudus. Performance parameters used in this study is the hit rk.co.id/ com/ (accessed 9x) rakyat.com/ (accessed 5x)
ratio, byte hit ratio, response time, and size distribution. (accessed (accessed (accessed 3x)
4x) 8x)
http://www http: // http://harimul http://warungf http://www.ja
II. METHODS .sukadi.net/ www.yosbe ya.com/ iksi.net/ goanhosting.c
(accessed da.com/ (accessed 1x) (accessed 1x) om/ (accessed
A. Testing Methods 10x) (accessed 1x)
2x)
Testingagainst two algorithms deletion cache (cache
replacement algorithm) that LRU algorithm and GDSF. Tests
on the algorithm does this by accessing the web in a scenario Furthermore, the testing was conducted at the time
that is already in the list and then on the run algorithm one by students requesting access the internet and then recorded in the
one each week. The first test uses LRU algorithm for two HTTP object of squid access.log. From access.log will be
days, then after GDSF algorithm was used for two days with a processed by software Squidanalyzer, Calamaris, and SARG
hit ratio parameters, byte hit ratio, response time and size are displayed in the form of a web report. Cache memory is
distribution. Performed at 08:00 to 09:00 hours. used for 1024 MB. Furthermore, the stored maximum object
size and a minimum size of 100 MB size 64B. Then, the
During the two days of each algorithm every request from parameters used are Hit Ratio, Byte Hit Ratio, Response Time,
the client where web access is already in the list beforehand and Size Distribution. Data collection was performed within
any website that will be accessible to so will be served by a 24 hours. With GDSF Algorithm for 3 days and LRU

2
algorithm for 3 days. Access client that the workload will be
very helpful in testing the performance of the two algorithms
are. Different client activity also provides testing of the
performance of each algorithm ..
B. System
The system will be builtaims to provide Internet access to
the boarding school. Client in the cottage through a device
connected to the network access point spread in the cottage.
The access point is then connected to the office via the
antenna point to point. In the office, there is a router device,
server and modem GPON. Routers in the boarding school into
a device that connects network and server client access to the
Internet through a modem GPON. So that the network was in
boarding school can connect to the Internet ..
Figure 1. Design of Network System
In Figure 1 is described on a general overview of network
topology on the system. PC Server is used as a proxy server
and also PCs as monitorung network traffic monitoring. Server
that will be built using Debian Linux operating system which
is then installed packages and a proxy for traffic monitoring
software used cacti. In the squid proxy server is used which is
installed in the server package. Squid proxy server to function
determine the performance Least Recently Used (LRU) and
Greedy Dual Size Frequency (GDSF) as a cache removal
algorithm.
By using 2 ISP load balancing router gives a chance to
share the traffic load. G-Media to ISP subscription with 3
Mbps bandwidth while Biznet subscribe to the 25 Mbps
bandwidth. Router will also transfer the web from the Internet
access to the proxy first client. Thus, all access is done by a
proxy server. Squid proxy server stores the object that is taken
directly from the Internet into the cache. Then, if in the cache
of the requested object has not been saved then it will directly
3
pass on to the ISP to request the object. With the number of
clients who are dipondok also affect the performance of the
cache from squid because if a lot of the same object often
accessed it will also speed to be accessed and will be
prioritized for removal because GDSF algorithm works by
object to the size of an object that is stored is likely to be
removed. Meanwhile, when the client is requesting a different
object the LRU algorithm will prioritize the elimination of the
cache by looking at the object that is stored in the old cache is
not requested by the client will be prioritized for removal.
So if there is a client that accesses the same object, Squid
will continue the object that has been stored in the cache. This
can save time in accessing client because the requested object
is located in a local network.
C. Testing Parameters
Hitratio is the most popular parameter for measuring the
efficiency of the cache replacement algorithm. Hit ratio is a
measure of comparison of the number of all objects cached by
the number of requests sent by the client to cache [3]. So you
can use the following formula:
[1]
The second parameter is the byte hit ratio. Byte hit ratio is
the ratio of byte values are cached with the total bytes
obtained client. Byte hit ratio indicates the percentage of
network bandwidth savings made. Byte hit ratio of 30%
indicates that three out of the 10 bytes requested by the client
retrieved from the cache. The seven bytes else was taken from
the original server [3]. Use the following equation
[2]
Response time is a parameter that indicates the total
elapsed travel time client to access the object. Values are
calculated from the initial response time client performs a
request object to obtain the object. Response time value is
inversely proportional to the hit ratio and byte hit ratio. If the
object is in the cache by the client, the response time will be
faster than taking an object from the original server. However,
there is no guarantee that if the hit ratio and byte hit ratio is
high, the response time will be too low. little objects with high
downloading latency may have a lower response time
compared with many objects in the cache with lower latency
downloads [4].
[3]
Size distribution is a parameter that describes the
deployment of objects in the cache based on size. With size
distribution, will be known performance of an algorithm in
storing objects according to size. Size distribution was able to
explain in details the hit ratio of byte values are obtained.
Within the parameters of size distribution can be shown the
percentage of requests to specific object size.
D. Applications used Testing
Squid Analyzer is one tools belonging Squid log analyzer
that can provide complete statistics covering a time, hits,
bytes, users, network, until the top url and top domain most
frequently accessed. The advantages offered from Squid
Analyzer them is no need for any database to be run, and also
see Squid This analyzer includes a fairly user friendly [5].
Squid Analysis Report Generator (SARG) is one
application that can help generate Internet usage statistics.
SARG generates web-based reports. SARG is used to retrieve
the data response time or travel time client of the request
object to obtain [6].
Calamaris are additional applications that can analyze the
access logs of squid and generate reports on the performance
of the use squid as a proxy server. Calamaris installed on the
proxy server and produces web-based reports. Calamaris used
to retrieve data about the hit ratio, byte hit ratio, as well as the
size distribution [7].
III. RESULTS
Quality of service refers to the ability of service on the
network traffic, to determine the quality of a network, network
services can be a better level, planned and controlled. Quality
of service parameters measured include delay, jitter, packet
loss, and throughput.Testing value for each quality of service
parameters obtained from the average - average per test, the
Null SAP with four hosts in VPLS 1000. While, in SAP dot1q
is as much as 8 hosts each are on VPLS 5800 and 9000 with
each service has a client as much as 4 host.Laptops are used in
testing has different specifications - different, and has
aEthernet 100 Mbpssupport.
A. Hit Ratio
In experimental measurement results hit ratio with a
scenario with two algorithms each day at 8:00 a.m. to 09:00 2
can be described as the following comparison chart.
Figure 2. Results of hit ratio is the scenario
in Figure 2 can be seen with the testing for 2 days with a
time of 1 hour at 8 a.m. to 09:00 in the scenario using 5
Laptop as a client to each client 10 websites. GDSF algorithm
is shown to have a higher hit ratio is compared with the LRU
4
algorithm. This caused a data erasure method GDSF prioritize
large object to be removed. So that a large object size is more
likely to be removed to make more space available to store
many small objects that could potentially increase the hit ratio.
GDSF algorithm has a high hit ratio value. With such an
increase in hit ratio on the second day. In addition there are
factors that have a website accessible to the small size makes
GDSF better performance in this scenario. LRU algorithm is
less likely to hit ratio value for accessing the first day and
second day are treated equally. This is due to the nature of the
LRU see the object of the request based on the last time in a
long time accessible prioritized for removal. On the second
day LRU and GDSF have increased compared to the first day
because of objects in the previous request is stored in the
cache makes the hit ratio increases. The average yield LRU
algorithm produced the hit ratio of 19.22% and 27.28% GDSF
algorithm. From these results look GDSF scenario using the
algorithm has better performance.
In the experimental results Hit Ratio measurements
directly when students access the Internet by two algorithms
for 3 days for each graph comparison algorithm can be
described as follows.
Hit Ratio The Scenario
25 23.11
Persentasi (%)
20
15 11.05 11.33
10 7.89
5.64 LRU
3.13
5
GDSF
0
1 2 3
Hari
Figure 3. Results are directly hit ratio when students access the internet
In Figure 3 it can be seen that within three days of testing,
the LRU algorithm has a higher hit ratio on all days of testing
against GDSF. This makes the algorithm performs better hit
ratio on the Internet at boarding Yasin. It is influenced of total
requests made by different clients in three days of testing on
the first day total request from the LRU 89 239 by 9946 while
the total number of hits request of GDSF 42 973 by 2597.
Accessing the total hit a different client greatly affect the
performance of the proxy server on each each algorithm. On
the second day LRU Hit Ratio reached 23.11% as many
objects that have been stored in the cache is large or small due
to the nature of the object size LRU memperahatikan not but
notice based on the time when the object is accessed apabula
the longer time it is accessed also be potentially deleted
priority. For GDSF algorithm on the second day of a very
small value of 3.13% hit ratio with the case due to different
object accessed on daily visits. The third day of the LRU
remains efficiently by 11.3% compared with GDSF that has
hit ratio of 7.89% although the total request from the LRU on
the third day amounted to 48 398 or less than the total request
GDSF to 58856. On the third day of the LRU can effesien
because many objects that have been accessed cacheable make
every client that accesses back proxy does not need to take on
the Internet. From table 4.6 average yield direct hit ratio LRU
algorithm is 16.53% and 5.77% GDSF algorithm. It is seen
that the LRU algorithm is better.
B. Byte Hit Ratio
On the results of experimental measurement scenario byte
hit ratio is accessing the Internet with two each algorithm
within 2 days at 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 o'clock comparison chart
can be described as follows.
Byte Hit Ratio Scenario
60.00 53.55
Byte Hit Ratio %
38.84
40.00 27.01
19.59
20.00 LRU
0.00 GDSF
1 2
Hari
Figure 4. Testing Results Byte Hit Ratio scenario
Based on theFigure 4 can be seen the percentage of byte
hit ratio in the scenario, GDSF have byte hit ratio is high. This
is due, in theory LRU cache removal method is based on the
length of time the object is in the cache. So the files located in
the cache the longest it will be prioritized for removal. While
GDSF attention object stored size to the extent that it will be
prioritized for removal. Judging Byte first day GDSF hit ratio
has a value of Byte hit ratio 27.01% with a scenario of
accessing the website do the same first and second day of the
second day the higher value for the first day of the request
object has been first stored cached and on the nature of the
object makes GDSF attention object having a large size is
replaced with new objects that can make a proxy performance
can be maximized. While LRU first day with the byte value
ratio hit 19.59 low because the same scenario of accessing
websites and recurrent cause LRU cache in the removal of less
than the maximum. Object at the same time into the cache so
its elimination longer. Most bytes hit taken from the original
server (Internet). On the second day LRU has a byte value hit
38.84% and GDSF has a byte value hit 53.55%. Table 4.2 of
the average byte hit ratio LRU algorithm is 30.99% and
40.03% GDSF algorithm. It makes GDSF algorithm showed a
good performance.
On the results of byte hit ratio measurement experiment
conducted by students directly accessing the Internet with two
algorithms for 3 days for each graph comparison algorithm
can be described as follows.
5
Byte Hit Ratio Directly
30 26.73
Persentasi (%)
18.13
20 15.13
12.23
10 5.98 5.42 LRU
0 GDSF
1 2 3
Hari
Figure 5. Byte Hit Ratio Test Results directly when students access the
Internet
Figure 5 shows the performance of the two algorithms on
byte hit ratio. LRU algorithm is able to obtain initial byte hit
ratio is higher than with GDSF. But when the second day of
testing, the byte value GDSF higher hit ratio. Then on the third
day of testing byte highest hit ratio remains GDSF.
This happens because the LRU save the object without
regard to size, which means that despite the large object size
will still be cached. This can be seen in the table: Percentage
distribution LRU byte object hit by a category VII on a
Thursday, July 27th (the first day of testing) has a value that is
large enough percentage of 32.51% compared to a category
VII in GDSF algorithm which has a value of percentage of
0%. It shows that on that day LRU able to transmit large byte
taken from the resulting byte cache hit ratio is high.
Then on the second day of testing GDSF can generate
value byte hit ratio higher than LRU. This can occur because
of the success of GDSF maintain a small object and popular
increasingly referred to by the client so that even a small
object sizes but many referred add value byte hit ratio.
Meanwhile, the performance of LRU rose on both the size
distribution byte object category VII hit ratio increased to
42.97% but GDSF more efficiently with a small object in
category III with a percentage of 20.73%. On the third day of
the performance LRUturun for the tests according to Table
size distribution of byte hit LRU, byte hit of object categories
small increase (I, IV, V) whereas byte hit object large category
(category VI and VII) decreased so that it makes the byte
value hit LRU ratio decreases. On average byte hit 13.93% for
the LRU algorithm and average algorithm in table 4.8 GDSF
10,10%. This indicates the LRU better than GDSF based byte
hit ratio.
C. Response Time
In the experimental results of measurement of response
time in the scenario to access the Internet with two each
algorithm within 2 days at 8:00 a.m. to 09:00 hours chart
comparison can be described as follows.
 ratio value indicated on the first day and the second has a
Response Time Scenario value of the high byte hit ratio is supported by the nature of
the LRU based on the time length of the file in the cache.
8,000,000 Client is accessing the network more frequently accessing the
6,107,256 5,913,820
Total millisec

6,000,000 4,141,529 4,010,353
4,000,000
LRU
2,000,000
0 GDSF
1 2
Hari
Figure 6. Results of Measurement of Response Time is the scenario
in Figure 6 is shown the value of a response time of two
algorithms with milisec time value. First Day LRU algorithm
has a lower response time compared with GDSF algorithm.
This could happen because of the scenario with five client
access website each client 10 websites and also has
determined the number of times the website is accessed /
requested several times. Thus during the first day LRU is more
efficient for accessing the web 10 with some websites do
access more than 1 time. For the first day GDSF less efficient
because objects that have been determined to do repeatedly
accessed cache removal GDSF make less work because of the
nature GDSF attention to size object to be removed. Then,
with the number of objects taken from the original server /
Internet, causing GDSF require greater time to object to the
client. Table 4.3 of the average response time of the LRU
algorithm millisec 4,075,941 and 6,010,538 GDSF millisec.
LRU looks capable of providing a fast time of GDSF.
In the response time measurement results of the
experiment performed by the students directly when using the
Internet access for 3 days for each graph comparison
algorithm can be described as follows.
Response Time
45926290
500000000 35195386 5
3
Total millisec
same web and repetitive that cause LRU has a high response
time. On the third day of the LRU value lower response time
due to the number of requests from a client that slightly
compared with the first and second day. So with a small
request and less then the number of objects too small which
makes the travel time becomes small.
While the algorithm GDSF on the first day and the second
has a small response time of the day due to the many objects
taken from the proxy cache so that the travel time from the
client requesting the object to the receiving object becomes
shorter. It can be seen from the value of the first byte hit ratio
with small object categories that make accessing the Internet,
the client has a response that cepta. On the day ketdua with a
total of bytes requested from client 389.848976 able to be
serviced by the byte cache hit reaching 104 379 314 having
been previously requested a lot of objects that are already in
the cache. Then on the third day response time is very
valuable because it is a new increase in the request object from
the client. With the new request then have to take on the
original server (ISP) that requires a longer response time. And
a request to the object major categories affect the value of the
response time. That's because the numbers byte hit ratio which
leads to high response time of low value so that the request
byte hit ratio high and proxy cache relative faster filled lead-
time service to the client algorithm GDSF very nice on the
first day of supported algorithms GDSF have the nature of
attention to size object where if the large size of the object will
be prioritized for removal replaced with a new object. From
the response time results in Table 4.9 and Table 4:10 average
of 197 088 588 millisec LRU algorithm while the average
response time algorithm GDSF at 4:10 table at 182 147 206
millisec.
D. Size Distribution
In size distribution measurement experiment results hit in
the scenario to access the Internet with two each algorithm
within 2 days at 8:00 to 09:00 hours chart comparison can be

400000000 described as follows.

300000000 15713752
200000000 2
LRU
Size Distribution Hit The First
82174380
75224646
100000000 11954066
GDSF
Day Scenario
0 60
50
Persentasi (%)

1 2 3
40
Hari

20 22.46
17.67 LRU
Figure 7. Results of Testing Response Time directly when students access the
internet
8.88 17.7419.6 11.44
14.6616
4.69 GDSF
In Figure 7 is shown Response Time value of both 0 1.56 5.08 0 0 0
algorithms directly when students access the Internet to show I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
the time in millisec. Response time performance of the
algorithm LRU on the first day and the second can be seen in Kategori Ukuran Object
the picture response time 4:41 has a high value and on the Figure 8. Results of Measurement of Size Distribution hit in the first day
third day response time low. It happened because the byte hit scenario

6
 In Figure 8 shows that the LRU algorithm is a smaller Size Distribution Byte Hit The
percentage of the algorithm GDSF hit ratio for all sizes of
objects from I to VI, this is because the LRU have a tendency
First Day Scenario
to insert objects into the cache without notice the size of the 60
object. On the other hand, maintains GDSF category III and 55
IV. Then the object with category V also inserted into the 40
cache but the number is almost the same between LRU
18.6620.4718.55
algorithm and GDSF. Means that the algorithm minimizes 20 13.66 LRU
GDSF object with category V for entry into the cache. This is 16.6716.67
10.09 GDSF
evidenced by the value of their masinng higher percentage 0 0 1.547.34 0
0 0
GDSF category. I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
Kategori Ukuran Object
Size Distribution Hit
Secara The Second Day Gambar 10. Measurement Results Size Distribution byte hit in
the first day scenario
Scenario
Figure 10 shows the distribution byte hit sizes of object II
40 up to the GDSF algorithm higher than the LRU algorithm
31.3
34.48 because in the first day scenario GDSF performance to
30 minimize objects with large categories has not worked it can
20.03 29.68
20 14.65 21.73 20 LRU be seen from the value in category VI that reaches 55% LRU
16.47 algorithm is only 16.67%. For categories II through IV the
10 GDSF GDSF algorithm maintains the object and maximizes it. Then
7.3 6.96 7.14
3.57 in object V the number of byte hit percentages of the LRU and
0 0 0 0 GDSF algorithms is almost identical that it shows GDSF
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX minimizes the Category V object to enter the cache. LRU
Figure 9. Size Distribution Measurement Result hit by the second day scenario algorithm tends to insert large objects without seeing the
object size seen from Figure 4.36 in categories II to VI has
In Figure 9 shows that the size distribution at the first increased the percentage value.
object bigger than the LRU algorithm GDSF algorithm caused
by accessing the website with the number 50 on 5 client with
each client 10 has a different Characteristics between websites Size Distribution Byte Hit
make LRU value higher object in category I compared GDSF.
But in categories II, III, IV algorithm GDSF hit ratio has a The Second Day Scenario
value higher than the LRU to maintain the object. That's
because GDSF attention to size objects stored in the cache, the 50
V and VI categories tend to be maintained. This is evidenced 40 41.67
by the LRU algorithm which has a high percentage value in 29.24 32.07
categories V and VI. Because LRU tends to keep objects large 30
and cached. 22.26
20 22.72 LRU
12.38 18.78
17.55 17.85
10 GDSF
5.91
0 0 0 0 0
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
Kategori Ukuran Object

Gambar 11. Measurement Results Size Distribution byte hit by the second day
scenario

Figure 11 shows that the objects II through IV of the

GDSF algorithm are higher byte hit ratio than the LRU
algorithm. This is because GDSF maintains small objects to
maximize. In the Category V and VI objects the LRU
algorithm is higher byte hit ratio than the GDSF algorithm

7
because LRU maintains a large-size object to be inserted into and the GDSF only 389,848,976 was the factor with the small
the cache regardless of object size. request will affect the percentage of each category of object so
small percentage. With a small number of bytes GDSF has a
In the result of measurement size distribution test done by higher byte hit ratio than LRU. For category VI GDSF has hit
santri directly when using Internet access for 3 days for each ratio of only 1.95% and LRU hit ratio of 12.86% it is also
algorithm can be described graph comparison as follows. influenced by the number of clients who request the category
of object becomes less visible performance than GDSF. In
category VII LRU has high hit ratio with 48% percentage
Size Distribution Hit Ratio which means able to give byte of big object category to client.
For GDSF still consider the size of the object to be stored in
Directly Day One the cache by minimizing the category of large object that is in
60 category VII with the percentage of 11.11%.
56.88
Persentasi (%)

40 31.6
LRU
20 16.73 24.32 Size Distribution Hit Ratio
12.32 GDSF
13.28 6.59
1.433.13 11.83 Directly Day Third
0 0.870.71 0 0 0 0
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX 40
37.51

Persentasi (%)
Gambar 12. Measurement Results Size Distribution hit directly when santri 30 27.89 25.66
Internet access the first day 23.62
20 17.11
In Figure 12 it shows that the categories of objects I LRU
10 2.97 8.08 3.23 12.05
through IV LRU algorithms have higher hit ratio percentages 1.36 GDSF
9.36 10
than the GDSF algorithm this is due to requests from different 0 1.18 2.85 0 0
clients on the LRU and GDSF algorithms. In the V VDSF
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
object category has a high value due to many requests from
clients on the object compared to LRU. While in the category Kategori Ukuran Object
VI and VII GDSF tend not to defend the object because of the
nature of GDSF that keeps the size of the object to be stored in Gambar 14.Measurement Results Size Distribution hit directly
the cache is different from the LRU which maintains the when santri third day Internet access
category of object VI with the hit value ratio of 6.59% and
category VII has a value of 24, 32% tend to retain the large Figure 14 shows that objects I, III, IV, V, VI LRU are
object is then inserted into the cache. higher than GDSFs caused by requests from different clients
on the LRU and GDSF algorithms. In category VII GDSF has
a higher hit ratio compared to LRU because on that day the
Size Distribution Hit Ratio client merequest these objects differently making GDSF more
effective increase in providing services requested by the client.
Directly Day Second
60 In the experimental results measurement size distribution
48
Persentasi (%)

41.06 byte hit that dilukaukan santri directly access the Internet with
40 28.23
20.18 two algorithms each within 2 days at 08.00-09.00 can be
20 12.86 LRU
1.135.71 11.04
23.16
19.56 11.11 described graph comparison as follows.
0 0.162.96 1.95 0 0
GDSF
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX Size Distribution Byte Hit Ratio
Kategori Ukuran Object Directly Day One
60 46.52 53.51
Measurement results Size Distribution hit directly
Persentasi (%)

Gambar 13.
when santri Internet access the second day 40
32.51
20 14.93 11.15 LRU
2.85
Figure 13 shows the objects I through IV LRU algorithms 0 0 14.21 10.04
11.28
0 0.67 0 0 0 0 GDSF
higher than the GDSF algorithm this is caused by the number I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
of client requests to each different object category resulting in
a high byte hit ratio on the LRU algorithm. In the object size Kategori Ukuran Object
category V LRU decreased with the percentage of 20.18% and
GDSF 19.56% then can be seen from table 4.7 on the second Gambar 15. Measurement Results Size Distribution byte hit
day the number of bytes from the LRU reached 4,793,034,194 directly when santri Internet access the first day

8

Figure 15 shows that the percentage value of the
distributed byte hit ratio of the LRU algorithm ratio is higher
than the GDSF algorithm in the categories of objects I, II and
III. This is because many objects in categories I, II, and III
have been stored to make LRU algorithm higher size
distribution byte hit ratio in that category. While in the
category of V VDSF object size has a percentage of 53.51%
inversely proportional to the percentage of LRU algorithm
which only 11.15% can occur because many of the same
object is inserted into the cache. For category VI, VII and VIII
the GDSF algorithm reaches 0% because it maximizes objects
with category V to enter the cache. With LRU having a
deletion properties based on the time of the object in the
cache, large-capacity objects tend to be retained and for small
categories tend to be deleted.
Size Distribution Byte Hit Ratio
Directly Day Second
60
Persentasi (%)
42.97
40 38.39
24.220.73
17.9817.67
20 LRU
0 5.7 11.85 18.51
0 0 2.83 13.46 2.94 0 0 GDSF
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
Kategori Ukuran Object
Gambar 16. Measurement Results Size Distribution byte hit
directly when santri Internet access the second day
Figure 16 shows that the percentage of bytes hit the object
size categories I, II, III, VI, VII, and VII LRU show better
performance in the hit byte. Means that of all object requests
category I, II, III, VI, VII, and VII LRU sizes are able to
provide better hit bytes than GDSF. However the request of
the V GDSF object category is better than LRU.
Size Distribution Byte Hit Ratio
Directyly Day Third
60
Persentasi (%)
40 39.05
19.75 21.28
20.42
20 5.5 LRU
0 3.32 6.69 7.08
0 0 1.1 7.342.886.45 0 0 GDSF
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
Kategori Ukuran Object
Gambar 17. Measurement Results Size Distribution byte hit
directly when santri third day Internet access
Figure 17 shows the result of the hit byte percentage that
for Category III, IV, and V object sizes show better
9
performance in hit bytes. Means of all category III, IV, and V
category object requests are able to provide better hit bytes
than GDSF. However for all requests category II, VI, and VII
are served well by GDSF over LRU. Thus the request from the
client also mempengaru byte hit value of each algorithm.
IV. CONCLUSION
From the results of the research, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The performance of the LRU algorithm and the GDSF
algorithm as cache deletion by testing in a scenario is as
follows:
● The LRU and GDSF algorithms both maintain popular
objects that are in the cache. However, the difference lies in
the GDSF algorithm considering object size. Large-size
objects tend not to be retained in the cache. While LRU
consider the old object that is in the cache.
● Size Distribution of object size in LRU is likely to include
popular and large objects
● Size distribution of object sizes on GDSF is likely to
maximize popular small objects and minimize popular large
objects
● Average hit ratio (total request cache can be serviced) LRU
algorithm 19.22% of the average total of all client requests
12488, and average hit ratio (total request that can be served
cache) GDSF algorithm 27.28% of the average total of all
10337 client requests.
● Average Byte hit ratio (total request byte taken from the
cache) LRU algorithm is 30.99% of total byte request
159.377.564 and average byte hit ratio (total request byte
retrieved from the cache) algorithm GDSF 40 , 30% total
junlah byte request 219.544.923.
● Average Response time (LRU algorithm) is 4,075,491
millisec and average response time (client access time gets the
requested object) GDSF 6.010.538 millisec algorithm.
● From the tested parameters it can be concluded that when
testing with GDSF algorithm scenario is more effective than
LRU algorithm.
2. Performance of proxy server on the Internet network at
Yasin Kudus Pesantren when students use Internet access are
as follows:
● Size Distribution of object size in LRU is likely to include
popular and large objects
● Size distribution of object sizes on GDSF is likely to
maximize popular small objects and minimize popular large
objects
● Average Hit ratio (total request cache can be serviced) LRU
algorithm is 16.53% of the total average total client request
73234 and average hit ratio (total request that can be served
cache) 5.77% GDSF algorithm from the average of the total
client request is 52884.
● Byte hit ratio average (total request byte taken from the
cache) LRU algorithm 13.93% of total byte request
3.906.476.980 and average byte hit ratio (total request byte
taken from the cache) GDSF 10 algorithm, 10% of total junlah
byte request 2,219,231,276.
● Average Response time (LRU LRU algorithm 197.088.588
millisec) and average response time (Client access time gets
the requested object) GDSF algorithm 182.147.206 millisec
● LRU performance shows better than GDSF on Hit Ratio and
byte hit ratio parameters while response time parameter,
GDSF performance is better than LRU.
● Based on comparison analysis and weighing size
distribution of access client network of Yasin Kudus
Pesantren, selected LRU algorithm as the best cache removal
algorithm.

APPRECIATION
The author would like to thank Mr. Ari Sriyanto Nugroho and
Mrs. Sri Anggraeni Kadiran for his guidance during the
process of preparing the paper. Next is a thank-you to Yasin
boarding school that has allowed me to build Internet network
infrastructure and State Polytechnic Semarang as an institution
that I have been studying.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Sadewa, EE (2016). Analisis Komparasi Cache
Replachement Algorithm Untuk Meningkatkan
Kinerja Proxy Server Pasar Grosir Pekalongan.
Semarang.
[2] Yani Kris Nanang, RA (2011). Membangun Firewall
dan Proxy Server Untuk Membatasi Hak Akses
Internet di SD Negeri Piyaman II. 6.
[3] Mardi, A. (2011). Analisis Perbandingan Algoritma
Penggantian Cache Pada Squid Berdasarkan
Parameter Request Hit Ratio. 1-16.
[4] John Dilley, MA (1999). Enhancement and Validation
of Squid's Cache Replacement Policy.
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/1999/HPL-1999-
69.html.
[5] Rahman, R. (2014).
http://www.sayabisa.com/2014/02/memonitor-kinerja-
squid-proxy-dengan.html. Retrieved 07 22, 2017, from
http://www.sayabisa.com/2014/02/memonitor-kinerja-
squid-proxy-dengan.html:
http://www.sayabisa.com/2014/02/memonitor-kinerja-
squid-proxy-dengan.html
[6] Rahman, R. (2013). Mahir Administrasi Server dan
Router Linux Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. Bekasi.
[7] Saini, K. (2011). Squid Proxy Server 3.1 Beginner's
Guide. Birmingham: www.packtpub.com.

10