Re: [squid-users] cache_mem or let the kernel handle it?
2008/6/11 Henrik Nordstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On tis, 2008-06-10 at 10:18 +0200, Anton Melser wrote: When going through mod_cache before finally coming back to squid, they talk about the fact that it can actually be better to use a disk cache than a mem cache. The reason being that the kernel caches files, and does so very well... For Squid it's a complex equation, but if your site is mostly small objects (max some hundreds KB) and of reasonably limited size then boosting up cache_mem is a benefit. Thanks for that. For some reason I'm not surprised it's complicated! In any case, the site is now so fast (and doesn't cache things it shouldn't) with squid that changing anything seems so pointless. We do indeed have the situation you mention, so I'll keep it up where it is! Cheers Anton -- echo '16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D4D465452snlbxq' | dc This will help you for 99.9% of your problems ...
Re: [squid-users] cache_mem or let the kernel handle it?
On tis, 2008-06-10 at 10:18 +0200, Anton Melser wrote: When going through mod_cache before finally coming back to squid, they talk about the fact that it can actually be better to use a disk cache than a mem cache. The reason being that the kernel caches files, and does so very well... For Squid it's a complex equation, but if your site is mostly small objects (max some hundreds KB) and of reasonably limited size then boosting up cache_mem is a benefit. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[squid-users] cache_mem or let the kernel handle it?
Hi, When going through mod_cache before finally coming back to squid, they talk about the fact that it can actually be better to use a disk cache than a mem cache. The reason being that the kernel caches files, and does so very well... I have pumped up the cache_mem to 1GB and the cache disk usage to 5GB, as I'm using a machine that is doing only this (+ mod_jk), and has plenty of resources... I have to admit it seems quite a bit faster than mod_cache was, though that is probably just because I have the possibility to cache more (by being able to use regexs for things I don't want cached very precisely...), but are there any thoughts on this? Cheers Anton -- echo '16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D4D465452snlbxq' | dc This will help you for 99.9% of your problems ...
Re: [squid-users] cache_mem or let the kernel handle it?
Anton Melser wrote: Hi, When going through mod_cache before finally coming back to squid, they talk about the fact that it can actually be better to use a disk cache than a mem cache. The reason being that the kernel caches files, and does so very well... I have pumped up the cache_mem to 1GB and the cache disk usage to 5GB, as I'm using a machine that is doing only this (+ mod_jk), and has plenty of resources... I have to admit it seems quite a bit faster than mod_cache was, though that is probably just because I have the possibility to cache more (by being able to use regexs for things I don't want cached very precisely...), but are there any thoughts on this? There have been no tests posted to the list detailing the advantages of either method. At least not in the last few years. Currently Squid only puts objects fetched from the network in the memory cache. Objects on disk can be put in memory by the OS. For that reason alone, I would personally keep a small cache_mem, and give most of the memory over to the OS. Cheers Anton Chris
