Hi Peter,
Also sprach Peter Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thu, 19 Jan
2006 15:10:05 -0600):
> Richard, I was wondering if you've gotten anywhere with this? I did
> some testing on my fairly busy squid cache.. Here are the results,
> from Squid's perspective (access.log)..
oh, I did, have a look
Richard, I was wondering if you've gotten anywhere with this? I did
some testing on my fairly busy squid cache.. Here are the results, from
Squid's perspective (access.log)..
stimeA 47639 clientA TCP_MISS/200 49075472 GET
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.14.tar.gz -
DI
> Also sprach Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Sat, 14 Jan 2006
> 00:03:47 +0100 (CET)):
> > What type of cache_dir are you using?
On 14.01 09:25, Richard Mittendorfer wrote:
> 2x diskd
> > Squid version?
> 2.5stable12, Debian's prebuild.
Debian GNU/Linux I guess... why diskd and not aufs
Also sprach Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Sat, 14 Jan 2006
14:26:20 +0100 (CET)):
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Richard Mittendorfer wrote:
> >> Why I ask is because diskd is known to be somewhat slow on large
> >cache
> >
> > Not really large. 2x 1G. It's no storage bottleneck I believe.
>
> lar
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Richard Mittendorfer wrote:
Why I ask is because diskd is known to be somewhat slow on large cache
Not really large. 2x 1G. It's no storage bottleneck I believe.
large cache hits == hits on largeish cached objects.
hits in certain situations UNLESS there is sufficient
Hi,
Also sprach Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Sat, 14 Jan 2006
00:03:47 +0100 (CET)):
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Richard Mittendorfer wrote:
>
> > Jepp, they are TCP_HIT.
>
> What type of cache_dir are you using?
2x diskd
> Squid version?
2.5stable12, Debian's prebuild.
> How much other
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Richard Mittendorfer wrote:
Jepp, they are TCP_HIT.
What type of cache_dir are you using?
Squid version?
How much other traffic at the same time to this Squid?
Why I ask is because diskd is known to be somewhat slow on large cache
hits in certain situations UNLESS ther
Also sprach Jason Healy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Fri, 13 Jan 2006
08:57:39 -0500 (EST)):
> At 1137150799s since epoch (01/13/06 00:13:19 -0500 UTC), Richard
> Mittendorfer wrote:
> > Also sprach Jason Healy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thu, 12 Jan 2006
> > 22:37:58 -0500 (EST)):
> > > What are you using for yo
At 1137150799s since epoch (01/13/06 00:13:19 -0500 UTC), Richard Mittendorfer
wrote:
> Also sprach Jason Healy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thu, 12 Jan 2006
> 22:37:58 -0500 (EST)):
> > What are you using for your speed tests? I'm using wget, so I know
> > there's no browser cache issue.
>
> Originally
Also sprach Jason Healy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thu, 12 Jan 2006
22:37:58 -0500 (EST)):
> At 1137142598s since epoch (01/12/06 21:56:38 -0500 UTC), Richard
> Mittendorfer wrote:
> > Well, can't reach this here. Cached ~260KkB/s. And I'm quite sure
> > the file was still in the linux disk cache. What d
At 1137142598s since epoch (01/12/06 21:56:38 -0500 UTC), Richard Mittendorfer
wrote:
> Well, can't reach this here. Cached ~260KkB/s. And I'm quite sure the
> file was still in the linux disk cache. What does your cache_dir looks
> like? aufs I assume.
27GB on our root filesystem:
cache_dir auf
Hi,
Also sprach Jason Healy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thu, 12 Jan 2006
21:23:38 -0500 (EST)):
> At 1137138557s since epoch (01/12/06 20:49:17 -0500 UTC), Richard
> Mittendorfer wrote:
> > It's even if I'm the only client and it's one big file that's
> > retrieved, so it must be some kind of internal li
At 1137138557s since epoch (01/12/06 20:49:17 -0500 UTC), Richard Mittendorfer
wrote:
> It's even if I'm the only client and it's one big file that's retrieved,
> so it must be some kind of internal limit. I have to look into the
> source, maybe I can find it hardcoded somewhere. 256kB/s looks so
Hi Peter,
Also sprach Peter Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thu, 12 Jan
2006 18:45:49 -0600):
> Peter Smith wrote:
> > Richard Mittendorfer wrote:
> >> When downloading a cached file from the local squid, I just get
> >about > 250 - 280kB/s. Even on localhost. Is this a limitation with
> >diskd > servi
Peter Smith wrote:
Richard Mittendorfer wrote:
Hello *,
When downloading a cached file from the local squid, I just get about
250 - 280kB/s. Even on localhost. Is this a limitation with diskd
serving files from cache or some intern limit? I also tried aufs, but
didn't get a better rate. I fou
Richard Mittendorfer wrote:
Hello *,
When downloading a cached file from the local squid, I just get about
250 - 280kB/s. Even on localhost. Is this a limitation with diskd
serving files from cache or some intern limit? I also tried aufs, but
didn't get a better rate. I found a thread here abou
Hello *,
When downloading a cached file from the local squid, I just get about
250 - 280kB/s. Even on localhost. Is this a limitation with diskd
serving files from cache or some intern limit? I also tried aufs, but
didn't get a better rate. I found a thread here about this, but it got
more into a
17 matches
Mail list logo
