Re: Much wanted feature.

> Oh man... One would need a LOT of disk space for that. Even massive 20+ GB
> caches can't manage to cache a big enough chunk of the Internet to exceed
> about 20-30% hits (well, 20-30% hits for their sibling caches). I have no
> idea how much disk you would need to cache a significant chunk of the
> Internet, but I would guess you'd need well over 100 GB.

        Uh. We get around 55% hit rates here at Connect, which translates
to about 43% byte savings. We have 113GB across 3 caches. Previously we
were getting 45% hit rates and 38% savings with 52GB.

        Caches downtream from us regularly see 50% hit rates onto our caches,
and direct connecting users (dialups, etc) get around 70% hit rates onto them.
The 113GB is flushed every 3 days (on average) by sheer traffic volume alone.

        High hit rates ARE extremely possible. Although we are probably a
little rare in that our caches serve upwards of 75GB/day and have about
10000 users connecting daily via some means or other. This large user base
means we achieve better hit rates through statistical probability.
 
> As for mounting a cache_dir remotly, I think others have had only bad luck
> with this. My guess is that it would be very slow, although I havn't ever
> tried it.

        Not to mention all the NFS locking required. Yeech.

                Stew.
Received on Mon Oct 27 1997 - 18:11:13 MST