Re: [squid-users] mount options for cache_dir
On 29.05 10:38, Khawar Nehal wrote: > What kind of options are used to make ext3 comparable to ext2 in > performance for squid. probably 'noload' would make ext3 comparable to ext2. However it removes the main benefit of ext3 over ext2: journalling. 'data=writeback' would help too, but can cause invalid data appear on the FS. 'commit=' seems the best option for me, but doesn't help that much. the nubmer is interval of commiting data to disk, default is 5, I use 30. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; 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. REALITY.SYS corrupted. Press any key to reboot Universe.
Re: [squid-users] mount options for cache_dir
What kind of options are used to make ext3 comparable to ext2 in performance for squid. On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 11:15 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On Thu, 26 May 2005, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > > >However, some researches documented that reiserfs is not good FS for things > > >like squid cache and that ext3 is faster... > > On 27.05 07:51, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > > And several has the exact opposite results.. > > Of course, for example there are people that do not know the 'notail' option > for reisersfs ;) > > I just want to say that some people prefer ext3 over reiserfs. basically, > used options were well-tuned for squid cache directory.
Re: [squid-users] mount options for cache_dir
> On Thu, 26 May 2005, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > >However, some researches documented that reiserfs is not good FS for things > >like squid cache and that ext3 is faster... On 27.05 07:51, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > And several has the exact opposite results.. Of course, for example there are people that do not know the 'notail' option for reisersfs ;) I just want to say that some people prefer ext3 over reiserfs. basically, used options were well-tuned for squid cache directory. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; 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. One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and into darkness bind them
RE: [squid-users] mount options for cache_dir
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Ilker GOKHAN wrote: As far as I remember there was a benchmarking test which was done by Duane. According to this report, ext2 with async (aufs) is one the best choice. Sounds reasonable. ext2 is a farily light filesystem unless you need syncronous operations (which Squid doesn't use) or very large directories (which Squid also doesn't use) However, smarter filesystems may be able to acheive a better write speed for the amount of small files used by Squid. Regards Henrik
Re: [squid-users] mount options for cache_dir
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: However, some researches documented that reiserfs is not good FS for things like squid cache and that ext3 is faster... And several has the exact opposite results.. Regards Henrik
RE: [squid-users] mount options for cache_dir
Hi, > > > >However, some researches documented that reiserfs is not > good FS for things > >like squid cache and that ext3 is faster... As far as I remember there was a benchmarking test which was done by Duane. According to this report, ext2 with async (aufs) is one the best choice. Please correct me If I am wrong.. Best regards, Ilker G.
Re: [squid-users] mount options for cache_dir
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 25.05 19:32, Askar Ali wrote: would someone spare sometime to suggest me good mount options for cache_dir partition for reiserfs fs. Atm i'm using the below for my cache_dir partition is this the correct or some guru could suggest thing better.. $cat /etc/fstab dev/sda6/cache1 reiserfs rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,noatime,nodiratime,notail,block-allocator=noborder 0 2 I think they are just OK. What is probably most inportand is "noatime" and for reiserfs "notail" and "noborder" However, some researches documented that reiserfs is not good FS for things like squid cache and that ext3 is faster... hi Matus thanks for your reply, as far as I heard and read reiserfs kinda good fs for squid cache (skipping details). However I will keep your point in ma mind for future reference. Thanks and regards Askar
Re: [squid-users] mount options for cache_dir
On 25.05 19:32, Askar Ali wrote: > would someone spare sometime to suggest me good mount options for > cache_dir partition for reiserfs fs. > > Atm i'm using the below for my cache_dir partition is this the correct > or some guru could suggest thing better.. > $cat /etc/fstab > > dev/sda6/cache1 reiserfs > rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,noatime,nodiratime,notail,block-allocator=noborder > 0 2 I think they are just OK. What is probably most inportand is "noatime" and for reiserfs "notail" and "noborder" However, some researches documented that reiserfs is not good FS for things like squid cache and that ext3 is faster... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; 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. He who laughs last thinks slowest.
[squid-users] mount options for cache_dir
Hi list would someone spare sometime to suggest me good mount options for cache_dir partition for reiserfs fs. Atm i'm using the below for my cache_dir partition is this the correct or some guru could suggest thing better.. $cat /etc/fstab dev/sda6/cache1 reiserfs rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,noatime,nodiratime,notail,block-allocator=noborder 0 2 Regards Askar Ali
