Re: [squid-users] Squid Under High Load

> On Sun, Feb 04, 2007, Manoj Rajkarnikar wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >
> > > Part of the work I did quite a while ago was to try and allow people to
> > > store very large objects on another spool. I guessed that the large objects
> > > were accessed less frequently and so could happily be stored in a UNIX
> > > filesystem. The file open rate for a "normal" UNIX filesystem is what, 50 ish
> > > requests a second for a single-spindle disk filesystem? Maybe slightly higher
> > > if all your directory entries are cached?
> > >
> > > Research has mostly shown that to be true; ie the overhead of UNIX filesystems
> > > becomes less of a concern after the object size grows past a couple hundred
> > > kilobytes. I'd quote the references but I don't have them handy - I'll make
> > > sure they appear in the document library once the new Squid website is released.
> > >
> > > So as long as you're able to store small objects seperately from large objects
> > > and make sure one doesn't starve IO from the other then you'll be able to both
> > > enjoy your cake and eat it too. :P
> >
> > That would be a great feature to have, to be able to put larger objects in
> > a separate space. Thanks. :)

On 04.02.07 13:57, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> You already can, to some extent. See the cache_dir configuration
> information; there's a "max object" size parameter. cache_dirs are checked
> in order so just have your small object stores have a max objsize
> parameter of something other than -1.

however, having option min-size would also be nice, to be ablke to configure
cache_dirs even more.

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
It's now safe to throw off your computer.