On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Matt wrote:
The "aufs" cache_dir type automatically tries to do this when the harddrive
I/O load is too high.
Is "aufs" type less stable then "ufs"?
Not that I know of.
Regards Henrik
Is there anything to be gained by switching to AUFS in a SCSI RAID 0+1 (real hardware RAID with 64MB cache etc) environment? How long is a piece of string....I know - just curious from a "theoretical" point of view.
We often see system (i.e., not "nice" or "user") utilisation go up under heavy Squid load on FreeBSD, but I can't say whether or not this results in a noticeable performance degradation - we've never measured it and the users haven't complained (about proxy performance anyway).
-- James
