On 12/13/2012 03:49 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > Since I am using basic squid process I assumed that the logic is that > all workers use the same ufs
I wish it were true, but I am afraid your assumption is incorrect. I would not call SMP Squid "basic", especially if caching is enabled. You are using an advanced feature, with many caveats. Please see "What can workers share?" at http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/SmpScale > whihc is in this case is only one. I am not sure whether you mean that are using one worker or one ufs cache_dir in your squid.conf. If you have just one worker, then this is not SMP Squid. If you have the same cache_dir line for all workers, then your configuration is not currently supported: If you use ufs caching with SMP Squid, then you have to give each worker a dedicated cache (and those caches will not be in sync). HTH, Alex. > On 12/14/2012 12:42 AM, Alex Rousskov wrote: >> Are you using a shared memory cache? If yes, please file a bug report. >> You may want to add ${process_name} to your access.log line to show >> which worker all these GET and PURGE requests went to. >> >> Please note that ufs storage is not SMP-aware so the fact that the file >> disappeared from disk on PURGE in your test case was just an accident. >> The file will stay on disk if the worker receiving a PURGE request is >> different from the worker that cached the file. >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> Alex. >
