Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Quoting Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Sunil Mohan Ranta wrote: > > > > > > > > i am getting SO_FAIL messages in store.log > > > and no cache is being created on my system > > > the size of of cache_dir is constant at 17MB > > > > Any error messages in cache.log? > > > > REgards > > Henrik > > > > > > Strangely enough I have been having the same problem (no corresponding error in > cache.log BTW), so I backed up my squid.conf, deleted all the entries in my cache > dir and used the default squid.conf, modifying only the following: > > http_port 80 > http_port 3128 > http_port 8080 > cache_dir ufs /share/cache 100 16 256 > http_access allow all > cache_effective_user squid > cache_effective_group squid > > And the problem dissapeared! I haven't gone so far as to track down what part of > my > old config was causing the problem, but at least now I know it was something in > the > config (and not a problem with how squid was compiled or a directory permissions > problem). > > I'll post an update when I have traced the cause. > > Regards, > Rob Hadfield > >
Ok, I replicated the problem by: * Changing: cache_replacement_policy heap LFUDA * Stopped Squid * Deleted the contents of my cache_dir * Started Squid (cache dir rebuilt itself) * store.log started logging the following for everything: ... SO_FAIL -1 FFFFFFFF ... * Stopped Squid * Deleted the contents of my cache_dir * Changed: cache_replacement_policy lru * Started Squid (cache dir rebuilt itself) * store.log started logging the following swapouts: ... SWAPOUT 00 00000000 ... ... SWAPOUT 00 00000001 ... etc ... Now this may be due to my misunderstanding of how "cache_replacement_policy heap LFUDA" is supposed to work, but the comments in the config say this about it: # The heap LFUDA policy keeps popular objects in cache regardless of # their size and thus optimizes byte hit rate at the expense of # hit rate since one large, popular object will prevent many # smaller, slightly less popular objects from being cached. So is it my misunderstanding, or is it a bug? Regards, Rob Hadfield