Re: [squid-users] Large Files and Reverse proxy

On Friday 29 August 2008 03:40:21 Amos Jeffries wrote:
> >
> > For various reasons we have a number of multimedia files on this end of
> > the
> > connection, all large, and all with no explicit expiry information (which
> > I
> > can adjust if it helps).
>
> That will help. Enormously. The longer it can be explicitly known
> cacheable the better (RRC states only up to a year though).

Can I ask why? Is the default "LRU" or "heap LFUDA" policy concerned with
expiry dates.

> > However are there other likely "gotchas" with handling larger files?
>
> Some people find it more efficient to store them on disk rather than in
> memory. If your squid is already 64-bit or handling it nicely then no
> problem.

I don't think there is a performance issue here with memory. I think it is
just down to how the proxy decides which files to keep. As I said the goal is
to offload bandwidth usage.

I'm pondering dropping the caching of small objects, since mostly they cause a
refresh_hit in this reverse proxy configuration, and the saving on bandwidth
isn't huge (although presumably it saves a trip over a congested link).

There is also a large number of small image files which I believe can have a
long expiry date set in Apache, I just need to check that with the guy who
did the file naming algorithmn. This would probably be a bigger win.

Perhaps I just need a cache which is as larger than all the data to be
served - which might be possible to organise given the current price of disk
space.
Received on Fri Aug 29 2008 - 08:49:44 MDT