Yes, we have some similar servers in Production. We use ramdisks, it works fine. You could also theoretically give ATS a large memory cache and small disk (proxy.config.cache.ram_cache.size). But then that cache is shared across all remaps, and you lose the control of different volumes for different domains, and ATS just generally isn't really designed for that. We've found ramdisks to work better in practice.
I will note, our servers like this also have poor CPUs. We thought this would be ok when we bought them, but it turns out you really kind of need decent CPU for things like SSL, and poor CPUs also tend to have poor PCI lanes, which are important. Our servers like this tend to cap out around 10Gbps, despite +20Gbps NICs. I don't know if yours are similar, but if your memory-poor servers are also CPU-poor, you might have the same bottlenecks. And that's not ATS' fault, it seems unlikely any other caching proxy could do better. On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:12 AM Nick Dunkin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I am being asked if Traffic Server can be efficiently run (or run at all) > on a disk *poor*, memory *rich *server. The specifics are out of scope > for this forum, but the short version is that I’m being asked to make use > of some existing hardware. > > > > I was considering creating a RAM disk from the several hundred GB of > available memory on these servers. > > > > Does anyone have any experience of running Traffic Server this way? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Nick > > > > *Nick Dunkin* > > Director, Software Engineering > > Manager – Architecture and New Product Introduction > > *o: * *+1 678.258.4071* > > *e:* [email protected] > > > > [image: [email protected]] >
