Re: [SQU] 2.4, diskd, FreeBSD seems a bit slow

On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Jon Mansey wrote:

> So you're getting around 32ms HIT times. Heres one of my 2.3 boxes, I
> see around 23ms here using UFS.

IMHO, the precision of this hit response time comparison is very low,
and no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from a two-point comparison
of different environments. The 9msec difference you report (23 vs
32msec) may be due to the factors that have nothing to do with the file
system choice. The difference may depend on time of day, memory hit
ratio, client network connectivity, etc.

If I were to compare plain UFS and diskd performance, I would either
collect statistically significant number of points from different
environments or benchmarked in a controlled environment.

$0.02,

Alex.

> Median Service Times (seconds) 5 min 60 min:
> HTTP Requests (All): 0.05951 0.09219
> Cache Misses: 0.20843 0.20843
> Cache Hits: 0.02317 0.02317
> Near Hits: 0.12783 0.16775
> Not-Modified Replies: 0.01235 0.01648
> DNS Lookups: 0.01331 0.01046
> ICP Queries: 0.00000 0.00000
>
> >Median Service Times (seconds) 5 min 60 min:
> > HTTP Requests (All): 0.80651 1.00114
> > Cache Misses: 1.46131 1.54242
> > Cache Hits: 0.03241 0.03241
> > Near Hits: 1.54242 1.54242
> > Not-Modified Replies: 0.01035 0.01309
> > DNS Lookups: 0.02336 0.03696
> > ICP Queries: 0.00000 0.00000
> >
> >Jon Mansey wrote:
> >
> >> Median Service Times (seconds) 5 min 60 min:
> >> HTTP Requests (All): 0.18699 0.18699
> >> Cache Misses: 0.19742 0.20843
> >> Cache Hits: 0.05951 0.05046
> >> Near Hits: 0.15888 0.16775
> >> Not-Modified Replies: 0.04519 0.04047
> >> DNS Lookups: 0.02231 0.02336
> >> ICP Queries: 0.00000 0.00000
> >>
> >> I thought diskd was supposed to improve disk access times?
> >>
> >> I think 50-60ms for cache hits is quite a bit slower than the 2.3
> >> boxes I have running, they average 20ms.
> >>
> >> What times are others seeing?

--
To unsubscribe, see http://www.squid-cache.org/mailing-lists.html