I can't imagine it would make as much of a difference as you're insinuating. I wonder if it's you're name resolution that's slowing things down. In the report (topsites for example) do you see names or IPs? If you see IPs, try changing your OS configured nameserver.
Thanks, Bryan -----Original Message----- From: nima sadeghian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 1, 2006 1:02 AM To: Shoebottom, Bryan Cc: Jason Gauthier; squid-users@squid-cache.org Subject: Re: SARG the cpu is 3.0 and free hard space is about 100GB. very strange. I used it in GNOME. could graphical interface effect the proficiancy? thnx nima On 5/31/06, Shoebottom, Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree, with ~5000 users we process a 1.5GB file nightly and it only > takes about 30minutes. The system is a dual 3.6GHz. > > Thanks, > Bryan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Gauthier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: May 31, 2006 9:12 AM > To: squid-users@squid-cache.org > Subject: RE: [squid-users] SARG > > > Hi friends > > my SARG is too slow. I run squid for 400 users here, and a > > log file about 200MB. after one night SARG is runnig and > > donot want to give me report . is this ok? > > How can I change it more quick? > > After 1 month my access.log is 1G in size. It only takes a little while. > This may be disk or CPU based issues. But I would check with the SARG > lists/maintainers. > -- Best Regards NIMA SADEGHIAN
