On 17.05 17:47, Andreas Pettersson wrote:
If the performance among the disks is about equal then cache performance is
significant better with 5 x 20G disks instead of 1 x 100G. How they are
partinioned doesn't matter.
It does matter. partitioning disks used for cache can decrease
performance,
On 17.05 22:35, Hendrik Voigtlnder wrote:
Our system uses striped cache disks.
I really wonder if there is a difference between e.g. 2x36GB striped
with a decent RAID-Controller (HP/Compaq, to be precise) or using those
disks independend from each other (only for squid cache, of course)
1st
]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Squid performance issue [again]
Hello,
Our system uses striped cache disks.
I really wonder if there is a difference between e.g. 2x36GB striped
with a decent RAID-Controller (HP/Compaq, to be precise
Hi,
I understand that the size of the physical RAM has to be
proportional to the
total harddisk cache size. Supposing I have
unlimited physical RAM,
1) What is the recommended size of 1 physical harddisk for
each server (each
server can have sda, sdb etc...). The reason I
Thanks.
So does it means that the number of partition as well as the
total size per
harddisk does not matter?
As long as the harddisk has multiple spindles, performance would be
equivalent?
By multiple spindles I meant multiple harddisks. Partioning per hard disk
won't
]
Subject: RE: [squid-users] Squid performance issue [again]
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:23:52 +0200
Hi,
I understand that the size of the physical RAM has to be
proportional to the
total harddisk cache size. Supposing I have
unlimited physical RAM,
1) What is the recommended size of 1 physical
Hello,
If you have unlimited physical RAM -- then why not use a RAM disk for cache ?
Personally I think that cache is over rated. There is NO point is having over
15-20 MB of cache per-person anyways.
Here I have given squid a 150MB RAM disk to store it's cache on -- so it the box
2) In term of performance only, is a 100GB harddisk better (partitioned
into
5 20GB partitioned) or 5 20GB harddisks better.
If the performance among the disks is about equal then cache performance is
significant better with 5 x 20G disks instead of 1 x 100G. How they are
partinioned doesn't
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Michael Gale wrote:
Hello,
If you have unlimited physical RAM -- then why not use a RAM disk for cache ?
Personally I think that cache is over rated. There is NO point is having over
15-20 MB of cache per-person anyways.
20MB per user is around 400GB for me.
