On Mon, 17 May 2004, Michael Gale wrote: > Hello, > > If you have unlimited physical RAM -- then why not use a RAM disk for cache ? > Personally I think that cache is over rated. There is NO point is having over > 15-20 MB of cache per-person anyways.
20MB per user is around 400GB for me. Spread across three boxes we have about 6GB of ram and 230GB of disk. during the work-week that's about 2 days worth of cache objects. > Here I have given squid a 150MB RAM disk to store it's cache on -- so it the box > crashed my cache is gone -- but then if the box crashed I have bigger problems. > > Michael. > > > > On Mon, 17 May 2004 08:17:19 +0000 > "Lizzy Dizzy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I understand that the size of the physical RAM has to be proportional to the > > total harddisk cache size. Supposing I have > > > > unlimited physical RAM, > > > > > > 1) What is the recommended size of 1 physical harddisk for each server (each > > server can have sda, sdb etc...). The reason I > > > > am asking this is that I am concern that the bigger a disk is, the longer > > squid needs to get an object out of it. > > > > I am currently using a U320 SCSI disk of 10KRPM, size 73GB. It is being > > partitioned into 4 smaller partition of 17GB each. > > > > Performace is within expectation, but I am wondering if reparttioning it > > into smaller sizes would give better yield. On the > > > > other hand, the disk has a fixed number of head, so would it even help? > > > > 2) In term of performance only, is a 100GB harddisk better (partitioned into > > 5 20GB partitioned) or 5 20GB harddisks better. > > > > > > Thanks > > Liz > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Find it on the web with MSN Search. http://search.msn.com.sg/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
