On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 13:52, Lucia Di Occhi wrote:
I am trying to fine tune (for speed) as well.
There are lots. depends on whether you want more speed or more bandwidth
savings.
use Reiserfs for the file-system w/ notail/noatime
Is it really worth using ReiserFS? I mean do you really
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:58:07PM +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 13:52, Lucia Di Occhi wrote:
Do not use RAID.
Do you mean SOFTWARE RAID? Hardware striping will definately improve
performance.
Frankly I'm not sure. Most ppl on the list does not encourage using
Hello Ow,
I haven't tested calamaris, but it seems unsuitable for me, because my
access logs (with log_mime_hdrs on) grow to 3 GB during 5 hours, so I
Wow. That certainly is a lot, but since you have log_mime_headers.
That sort of explains it.
Can I ask why do you need it? isn't it for problem
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 16:47, Martin Marji Cermak wrote:
Hello Ow,
Hey Martin,
I haven't tested calamaris, but it seems unsuitable for me, because my
access logs (with log_mime_hdrs on) grow to 3 GB during 5 hours, so I
Can I ask why do you need it? isn't it for problem tracking only?
Milind Nanal wrote:
2) Any fine tune parameters for better performance rather than using
default
values in squid.conf ?
On 09.12 14:14, Martin Marji Cermak wrote:
- diskd instead of ufs
aufs on linux should be more effective
- cache_mem 200 MB if you have enough of RAM
-
Do not use RAID.
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 13:52, Lucia Di Occhi wrote:
Do you mean SOFTWARE RAID? Hardware striping will definately improve
performance.
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:58:07PM +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
Frankly I'm not sure. Most ppl on the list does not encourage using
On 09.12 15:52, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
I have (just bought 1 1/2 week ago) and I've yet to reach that page.
But yeah, you're right, based on his test methods:
on Linux 2.4 with 32 threads, ext3fs is fastest.
schemeFS Mount Opt throughput
aufs ext3
People should be more specific than just dont use raid!.
Modern hardware
raid-boxes with GB's of cache are blazingly fast even on
RAID-5. Ofcourse
you shouldn't spend such money for cache which you can lose
without problems,
but if you have some free space on some raid-box why not use
* Chris Robertson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I don't think reiser is available on FreeBSD, but I've been wrong before...
You're correct. There is no support for ReiserFS on FreeBSD.
In any case, if you are using BSD, make sure that your cache dir is using
diskd vs ufs or aufs. Also, mount it on
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:58:07PM +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 13:52, Lucia Di Occhi wrote:
Do not use RAID.
Do you mean SOFTWARE RAID? Hardware striping will definately improve
performance.
To address this assertion, You will
We're using one FBSD 5.2.1 box with squid for our entire district ( 7
schools),
roughly 1300 computers.
I moved from our FBSD 4.10 baseline to 5.2.1 due to the thread problems,
and it's worked great under 5.2.1. It's been inserted as a transparent
gw by enabling forwarding for all lan segments,
My squid cache (with WCCP2) is running on FreeBSD 5.2 operating system for
an ISP. This is running fine but I want to tune it for better performance.
I have used HP DL 140 hardware with 80 GB IDE hard disk 512 MB RAM.
1) How do I check the HIT rate of my Squid BOX. Any utility. I have
My squid cache (with WCCP2) is running on FreeBSD 5.2
operating system for
an ISP. This is running fine but I want to tune it for better
performance.
I have used HP DL 140 hardware with 80 GB IDE hard disk
512 MB RAM.
1) How do I check the HIT rate of my Squid BOX. Any
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 19:22, Milind Nanal wrote:
My squid cache (with WCCP2) is running on FreeBSD 5.2 operating system for
an ISP. This is running fine but I want to tune it for better performance.
I have used HP DL 140 hardware with 80 GB IDE hard disk 512 MB RAM.
Try using Either SATA
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 21:10, Shantanu Gadre wrote:
Thumb rule for a fast squid through my experience is
spread it out on more disks
use as much ram as you can afford
use reiserfs
decrease the max cached size object
This depends on if you want more speed vs more bandwidth savings.
I
I am trying to fine tune (for speed) as well.
There are lots. depends on whether you want more speed or more bandwidth
savings.
use Reiserfs for the file-system w/ notail/noatime
Is it really worth using ReiserFS? I mean do you really get all that
performance improvement over ext3?
Do not use
Milind Nanal wrote:
My squid cache (with WCCP2) is running on FreeBSD 5.2 operating system for
an ISP. This is running fine but I want to tune it for better performance.
I have used HP DL 140 hardware with 80 GB IDE hard disk 512 MB RAM.
Hello Milind,
I am also trying to get the best
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 14:14, Martin Marji Cermak wrote:
Milind Nanal wrote:
1) How do I check the HIT rate of my Squid BOX. Any utility. I have tried
I haven't tested calamaris, but it seems unsuitable for me, because my
access logs (with log_mime_hdrs on) grow to 3 GB during 5 hours, so I
18 matches
Mail list logo
