On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Steve Cole <co...@itconsul.com> wrote:
Are there any kernel params that traffic server likes vs. squid? This made > a > sizable difference in scalabilty in squid, FWIW. > I think Leif has a list of sysctl changes which help. > > Can ATS make good use of so much RAM (is it 64-bit aware?) Obviously disk > cache will not help since ATS uses raw devices in my desired > implementation. > Sure, other people are running 48GB machines and dedicating 10s of GB to RAM cache. ATS is 64-bit and can use as much memory as you can stuff in the box. it uses about 1.25 GB/TB for the directory and by default will use that much for a RAM cache as well, but I would suggest tuning it by checking the process size as memory usage also depends on the number of active connections. > > Has anyone built a system with ATS to such high specs for a forwarding > proxy? > At 1K ops/sec that system is seriously overspec'd for ATS, but it will run well and you should have extremely low latency. > > If anyone has, are there any tips for cache freshness & retention to share? > > Will there be a Debian package soon/ever? I'd prefer this just for testing > purposes more than anything...! > > Are there any benchmarks done on given hardware between Squid and ATS with > regards to content freshness, response times, scalability and overall > throughput for forwarding proxy? > > If I find that ATS does what I need it to do, I'd like to step up and help > somehow. Perhaps documentation, as I'm no coder. FYI. > > Thanks for the time, should anyone decide to help me out. > > -- > --- > Cheers, > Steve >
