Jamie Tufnell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:22:25 +1000, Jamie Tufnell
We are talking files up-to-1GB in size here. Taking that into
consideration, would you still recommend this architecture?
Yes, the architecture itself is sound.
OK
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:22:25 +1000, Jamie Tufnell
>> We are talking files up-to-1GB in size here. Taking that into
>> consideration, would you still recommend this architecture?
>
> Yes, the architecture itself is sound.
OK cool. Thanks a
tor 2009-07-16 klockan 20:13 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
> Thanks Henrik. I was a bit unsure of that split.
It's from the sfileno and sdirno being packed in the same 32-bit slot,
both signed..
Relatively easy to change in the code if needed.
Regards
Henrik
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
tor 2009-07-16 klockan 14:29 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
For you with MB->GB files in Squid-2 that changes to faster Squid due to
limiting RAM-cache to small files, with lots of large fast disks. Squid is
limited to a few million (2^24) cache _objects_
per cache_dir, an
I was going to say; I'm tweaking the performance of a cache with 21
million objects in it now. Thats a bti bigger than 2^24.
2009/7/16 Henrik Nordstrom :
> tor 2009-07-16 klockan 14:29 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
>
>> For you with MB->GB files in Squid-2 that changes to faster Squid due to
>> limit
tor 2009-07-16 klockan 14:29 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
> For you with MB->GB files in Squid-2 that changes to faster Squid due to
> limiting RAM-cache to small files, with lots of large fast disks. Squid is
> limited to a few million (2^24) cache _objects_
per cache_dir, and up to 32 (2^6) cache
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:22:25 +1000, Jamie Tufnell
wrote:
> Thank you both for your responses, good to hear I might be on the right
> track!
>
> Amos wrote:
>> Just note that for MB or so scale files in memory Squid-2 is a snail,
and
>> Squid-3 does not yet provide collapsed forwarding.
>
> We ar
2009/7/16 Jamie Tufnell :
> We are talking files up-to-1GB in size here. Taking that into
> consideration, would you still recommend this architecture?
On disk? Sure. The disk buffer cache helps quite a bit.
In memory ? (as in, the squid hot object cache; not the buffer cache)
? Not without inv
Thank you both for your responses, good to hear I might be on the right track!
Amos wrote:
> Just note that for MB or so scale files in memory Squid-2 is a snail, and
> Squid-3 does not yet provide collapsed forwarding.
We are talking files up-to-1GB in size here. Taking that into
consideration,
Jamie Tufnell wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering if Squid is the right tool to solve a scaling problem
we're having.
Our static content is currently served directly from Apache boxes to
the end-user:
User <=> Apache
Originally it was just one Apache box but its Disk IO became saturated
and now we
have
Hi,
I am wondering if Squid is the right tool to solve a scaling problem
we're having.
Our static content is currently served directly from Apache boxes to
the end-user:
User <=> Apache
Originally it was just one Apache box but its Disk IO became saturated
and now we
have three Apache boxes, ea
11 matches
Mail list logo
