Re: [squid-users] squid3 SMP aufs storage/process

On 03/09/2013 12:48 AM, jiluspo wrote:

> Therefore squid SMP is not stable.

Support for ufs caching is not related to stability IMO, but perhaps
your definition of stable is different from mine.

> if we need to store more than 32KB the
> best way is to use multi-instance and peering...

Or use the unofficial Large Rock branch. It all depends on individual
circumstances and needs. There is no single Squid version that works
well for everybody.

> When would probably finish the rock for large content?

The Large Rock branch on Launchpad is ready for testing. It will
probably be submitted for Squid Project review in a few months.

HTH,

Alex.

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 3:03 PM
>> To: squid-users_at_squid-cache.org
>> Subject: Re: [squid-users] squid3 SMP aufs storage/process
>>
>> On 03/08/2013 11:21 PM, jiluspo wrote:
>>
>>> If squid3 configured with cache_dir aufs per process would they
>>> share to other process?
>>
>> No. Ufs-based store modules, including aufs, are currently not
>> SMP-aware. If you use them in SMP Squid (without protecting them with
>> SMP conditionals), your cache will get corrupted.
>>
>> SMP conditionals in squid.conf can be used to prevent corruption, but
>> they also prevent sharing of cache_dirs among workers.
>>
>> Rock store and memory cache are SMP-aware, share cache among workers,
>> and do not need SMP macros, but they have their own limitations (we are
>> actively working on addressing most of them).
>>
>>
>> Pick your poison,
>>
>> Alex.
>>
>> Email secured by Check Point
Received on Mon Mar 11 2013 - 18:44:48 MDT