>From my experience, in rather small load case(< 100 users), disk cache and memory >cache does not show big differences but in high load case, disk cache frequently makes afs_cacheXXX daemon take all CPU resources. (More than several hundreds concurrent users). We use some trick on here; for accessing file contents, use memory cache, for accessing stats and volume informations, use disk cache. I'm not sure whether this is best configuration, but up to now, this is the best combination, we're using 10 file servers and 28 clients, 21 of them is for downloading file contents, others are for stats and volume information accessing.
----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] Which kind of cache is best? On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Russ Allbery wrote: > I would recommend against using memory cache regardless of the load; we've > encountered a lot of instability and problems with it. I think a ramdisk > would be more stable. What kind of stability problems? What OS/OpenAFS combination? FWIW, I've used memory caches (not ram disk caches) on Linux (RH 8.0 and 9.0, versions from OpenAFS 1.2.5 to OpenAFS 1.2.9), and Solaris (1.2.10) without any obvious problems... *knocks on wood* Cheers, Stephen -- Stephen Joyce Systems Administrator P A N I C Physics & Astronomy Department Physics & Astronomy University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Network Infrastructure voice: (919) 962-7214 and Computing fax: (919) 962-0480 http://www.panic.unc.edu A picture is worth a thousand words; unfortunately, it consumes the bandwidth of ten thousand words. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
