Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
Ganbold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are using several squid machines (6 machines, each have all others as a siblings) for transparent caching/proxying using gre tunnel and wccp2 (with Cisco router). Can varnish work in such situation? Probably not; Varnish is a reverse proxy. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
--- JoaoBR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 21 August 2007 20:54:36 N. Harrington wrote: Hello I feel stupid, but I am confused about kern.maxdsiz (or datasize via limits command) on FreeBSD amd64. I have seen many posts and suggestions to raise it to 1G. However it seems this only applies to i386. By default, on servers I have with 4G of physical memory, and 2X that of swap, I am showing a reported datasize limit of 33554432KB. far in excess of even my physical and swap combined! I have seen suggestions from mysql for maxdsize to be set to 1G. Obviously no such problem with amd64? on amd64 when maxdsiz not set it stops at 512 limit but soon you set it to 1G it appearently is able to use more this is not the case on i386 - but I would say don't worry about it on i386 your machine could hang at boot when setting maxdsiz higher than installed physical memory but that never happened to me with amd64 I have some server running squid for caching perfect with 4, 8 and 16G of RAM I set maxdsiz do 3G on machines with 4Gigs of RAM but I do not run anything else so then I adjust cache_mem with maximum_object_size_in_memory to use the most possible amount of memory without doing swap. anyway you set it in boot.loader there is no need to compile something into the kernel -- João Thanks everyone. I tried setting my maxd size to 3.5G on a machine with 4gigs ram. It caused squid to seem to rop out on occasion. It seems so odd that on i366, maxd size is so small that one likely needs to set it higher to allow access to more memory. However on amd64, is such a high number that one would need to lower it to prevent accessing too much memory? Something really odd about that. I also found that I could even double the datasize / maxd size to 2X 33554432kB and it would boot and run just fine on a machine with 8 gigs of ram. How weird is that! Did amd64 just cause this setting to add 3 zero's? I can see the legacy documentation for i386 BSD and applications is going to cause some weirdness and problems if not careful. As for squid, just like Sendmail and Apache, yes there and plenty of I do it better and I am newer, alternatives out. But some things stay old favorites for a reason. I will take a look at Varnish, but it seemed much less user friendly to me that squid and much much less feature laden. Also, I saw no way to purge individual files from storage. (something I have to have) So it's always nicer to know how to make things work with what one has or needs to use, rather than just being told to use something else. I have over 30 machines with various configurations of squid in accelerator mode and most seem to work fine. However I will say they do have a preference for running on (1) Single core cpu and SCSI hard drives. On an average server with ~300G of disk, I have over 10M objects in storage. As usual though, I am dealing with a program(squid) that seems to be, Linux first, it happens to also run on FreeBSD second. Even though it seems many people seem to be using it with FreeBSD. Squid has also been great for me to test/beatup on gjournal (which should be in 6 by now and be available standard) and zfs. Nicole The Large Print Giveth And The Small Print Taketh Away -- Anon ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should configure squid to use no more than about 60 - 70% of the available physical RAM-- ie, set the cache_mem parameter to about 2.5 or 3GB. Better yet, don't run Squid at all. It was designed for a computer architecture that was already obsolete when Squid was first written. It wouldn't be unreasonable to limit datasize to 3 GB on such a machine, assuming that nothing you run will ever need to grow larger... ...actually, maxdsiz is meaningless in FreeBSD 7, because the new allocator uses mmap(2) instead of brk(2) / sbrk(2), so malloc() counts towards the resident set size (ulimit -m), not the data segment size (ulimit -d). (unless, of course, your application has its own allocator, in which case you can kiss performance goodbye) DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should configure squid to use no more than about 60 - 70% of the available physical RAM-- ie, set the cache_mem parameter to about 2.5 or 3GB. Better yet, don't run Squid at all. Ok, then what do you recommend instead of Squid? thanks, Ganbold It was designed for a computer architecture that was already obsolete when Squid was first written. It wouldn't be unreasonable to limit datasize to 3 GB on such a machine, assuming that nothing you run will ever need to grow larger... ..actually, maxdsiz is meaningless in FreeBSD 7, because the new allocator uses mmap(2) instead of brk(2) / sbrk(2), so malloc() counts towards the resident set size (ulimit -m), not the data segment size (ulimit -d). (unless, of course, your application has its own allocator, in which case you can kiss performance goodbye) DES -- Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn't have bugs, then they'd be algorithms. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
You should configure squid to use no more than about 60 - 70% of the available physical RAM-- ie, set the cache_mem parameter to about 2.5 or 3GB. Better yet, don't run Squid at all. Ok, then what do you recommend instead of Squid? Varnish. http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/ -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
Ganbold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Better yet, don't run Squid at all. Ok, then what do you recommend instead of Squid? That depends on what you use it for... DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
Alexandre Biancalana [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ganbold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, then what do you recommend instead of Squid? That depends on what you use it for... What the options for forward proxy/cache with user authentication and access control ? I'm not really into forward proxies, but there are a few (mod_proxy, privoxy, wwwoffle). DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
On 8/22/07, Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ganbold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Better yet, don't run Squid at all. Ok, then what do you recommend instead of Squid? That depends on what you use it for... What the options for forward proxy/cache with user authentication and access control ? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
On Tuesday 21 August 2007 20:54:36 N. Harrington wrote: Hello I feel stupid, but I am confused about kern.maxdsiz (or datasize via limits command) on FreeBSD amd64. I have seen many posts and suggestions to raise it to 1G. However it seems this only applies to i386. By default, on servers I have with 4G of physical memory, and 2X that of swap, I am showing a reported datasize limit of 33554432KB. far in excess of even my physical and swap combined! I have seen suggestions from mysql for maxdsize to be set to 1G. Obviously no such problem with amd64? on amd64 when maxdsiz not set it stops at 512 limit but soon you set it to 1G it appearently is able to use more this is not the case on i386 - but I would say don't worry about it on i386 your machine could hang at boot when setting maxdsiz higher than installed physical memory but that never happened to me with amd64 I have some server running squid for caching perfect with 4, 8 and 16G of RAM I set maxdsiz do 3G on machines with 4Gigs of RAM but I do not run anything else so then I adjust cache_mem with maximum_object_size_in_memory to use the most possible amount of memory without doing swap. anyway you set it in boot.loader there is no need to compile something into the kernel -- João A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
On Wednesday 22 August 2007 08:32:05 Claus Guttesen wrote: You should configure squid to use no more than about 60 - 70% of the available physical RAM-- ie, set the cache_mem parameter to about 2.5 or 3GB. Better yet, don't run Squid at all. Ok, then what do you recommend instead of Squid? Varnish. http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/ that certainly is a really hotty for caching :) -- João A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
On Aug 22, 2007, at 3:53 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should configure squid to use no more than about 60 - 70% of the available physical RAM-- ie, set the cache_mem parameter to about 2.5 or 3GB. Better yet, don't run Squid at all. It was designed for a computer architecture that was already obsolete when Squid was first written. This could be said of a lot of software, including many Unix flavors. :-) I can think of several things to criticise about Squid-- a config file which falls between Apache's httpd.conf and a sendmail.cf in terms of complexity is probably close to the top of my list, but for the simple purpose of saving limited network bandwidth using on-disk or in-memory caching, squid does just fine. I'd be happy to look at Varnish when I get a chance, though. It wouldn't be unreasonable to limit datasize to 3 GB on such a machine, assuming that nothing you run will ever need to grow larger... ...actually, maxdsiz is meaningless in FreeBSD 7, because the new allocator uses mmap(2) instead of brk(2) / sbrk(2), so malloc() counts towards the resident set size (ulimit -m), not the data segment size (ulimit -d). OK. Nicole, the OP, mentioned amd64, not -CURRENT, but I'll keep this in mind for future reference. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Ganbold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Better yet, don't run Squid at all. Ok, then what do you recommend instead of Squid? That depends on what you use it for... DES We are using several squid machines (6 machines, each have all others as a siblings) for transparent caching/proxying using gre tunnel and wccp2 (with Cisco router). Can varnish work in such situation? thanks, Ganbold -- A [golf] ball hitting a tree shall be deemed not to have hit the tree. Hitting a tree is simply bad luck and has no place in a scientific game. The player should estimate the distance the ball would have traveled if it had not hit the tree and play the ball from there, preferably atop a nice firm tuft of grass. -- Donald A. Metz ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
Hello I feel stupid, but I am confused about kern.maxdsiz (or datasize via limits command) on FreeBSD amd64. I have seen many posts and suggestions to raise it to 1G. However it seems this only applies to i386. By default, on servers I have with 4G of physical memory, and 2X that of swap, I am showing a reported datasize limit of 33554432KB. far in excess of even my physical and swap combined! I have seen suggestions from mysql for maxdsize to be set to 1G. Obviously no such problem with amd64? Is this just a high number chosen to let things run wild? (basically unlimited) I have been having some problems with running squid and my servers locking up. I think, from the process exceeding my physical memory and the server getting very unhappy trying use so much swap. (since it seems the process size is so unlimited) Could anyone help shed some light on this for me? If I have a server with 4G of memory, what would be a safe /sane allowable maximum for datasize? (assuming a light networking load) Thanks! Nicole ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
On Aug 21, 2007, at 4:54 PM, N. Harrington wrote: I have seen many posts and suggestions to raise it to 1G. However it seems this only applies to i386. By default, on servers I have with 4G of physical memory, and 2X that of swap, I am showing a reported datasize limit of 33554432KB. far in excess of even my physical and swap combined! True...that a big part of what you gain from running in 64-bit mode-- a huge address space. I have seen suggestions from mysql for maxdsize to be set to 1G. Obviously no such problem with amd64? Right. Is this just a high number chosen to let things run wild? (basically unlimited) I have been having some problems with running squid and my servers locking up. I think, from the process exceeding my physical memory and the server getting very unhappy trying use so much swap. (since it seems the process size is so unlimited) You should configure squid to use no more than about 60 - 70% of the available physical RAM-- ie, set the cache_mem parameter to about 2.5 or 3GB. Could anyone help shed some light on this for me? If I have a server with 4G of memory, what would be a safe /sane allowable maximum for datasize? (assuming a light networking load) It wouldn't be unreasonable to limit datasize to 3 GB on such a machine, assuming that nothing you run will ever need to grow larger... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
