Will having multiple Cache_dir's change the footprint of the Squid process? How is that factored into the formula?
-Mark -----Original Message----- From: Henrik Nordstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 4:28 PM To: Mark Pelkoski Cc: Michael R. Wayne; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [squid-users] Squid CPU Performance On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Mark Pelkoski wrote: > I wish SOMEWHERE in the FAQ it would state that it is silly to run > Squid on a multi-proc platform... The FAQ surely needs someone who tries to maintain it a little more actively.. it is a ideal task for anyone who likes Squid, wants to contribute to the project but is not fond of coding. All that is required is that you are not afraid of trying do destill the discussions on squid-users and make some useful notes about it.. The FAQ is writtent in linuxdoc-SGML which looks pretty much like HTML and is quite easy to add new things to. > What would the directives in my squid.conf look like in order to build > it out like you described with 4 drives for cache and one week's worth > of objects cached? Mount the cache drives on different directories, then use one cache_dir line per cache drive. > Probably 5 x 9 gig drives. The reason for 2x Procs is that I believe > that there are many other processes that can take advantage like the > 20 NTLM web_group helpers I am running and the Apache server I am > using for SARG and Webalizer reports. Having two CPUs is indeed nice for running other CPU intensive tasks on the same server as the proxy, such as if you have a lot of logs and need to run various statistics collections during peak hours. The authentication and group helpers barely use any CPU and does not benefit from dual-CPU configuration. > I understand that the Squid memory footprint depends a lot on how the > Cache Dirs are set up, so I want to avoid tapping swap at all costs. The formula you need for this is found in the Squid FAQ chapter on memory usage.. Regards Henrik
