I'll come back to one of Mark's earlier points then which seems to have
been lost. What will decide on adoption of -2 or -3 is the killer app.
Developers roadmaps or sponsors notwithstanding. I think the point was
raised that neither roadmap was especially compelling or seemed to yet
contain
, 2008, Michael Puckett wrote:
Mark Nottingham wrote:
A killer app for -3 would be multi-core support (and the perf
advantages that it would bring), or something else that the
re-architecture makes possible that isn't easy in -2. AIUI, though,
that isn't the case; i.e., -3 doesn't make
Mark Nottingham wrote:
A killer app for -3 would be multi-core support (and the perf
advantages that it would bring), or something else that the
re-architecture makes possible that isn't easy in -2. AIUI, though,
that isn't the case; i.e., -3 doesn't make this significantly easier.
Are there no pointers to changing the i/o buffer sizes in squid?
Configure parameters maybe, or constants in header files perhaps? Or are
buffer sizes computed on the fly?
Where do I begin looking in the code?
Regards,
-mikep
I have never run coss so I can't answer that. However, if you have a
dedicated server for Squid with a lot of memory this approach works very
well as the disk reads become simply a buffer reattach.
-mikep
Pablo García wrote:
Is this approach, valid when you use coss as storage ?
What would
Thanks, but we have been running this way for some time now and it works
VERY well for our needs. We have recently upgraded to the Gbit NICs and
are running well, but would like to optimize things by cutting down on
the syscall rate.
-mikep
Evan Klitzke wrote:
I think for larger files the
objects.
How much throughput are you able to get through the 4 Gbits of network
connections with a single squid?
- Dave Dykstra
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 06:13:32PM -0700, Michael Puckett wrote:
My squid application is doing large file transfers only. We have
(relatively)few clients doing
My squid application is doing large file transfers only. We have
(relatively)few clients doing (relatively)few transfers of very large
files. The server is configured to have 16 or 32GB of memory and is
serving 3 Gbit NICs to the clients downstream and 1 Gbit NIC upstream.
We wish to optimize
I have a 2 level squid setup. Several top level parent cache servers
which connect to the internet with multiple child servers supporting my
internal subnets. Is it possible to configure the top level servers to
use SSL over the internet and cache the objects locally while allowing
the child
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
ons 2007-06-06 klockan 10:26 -0700 skrev Michael Puckett:
I have a 2 level squid setup. Several top level parent cache servers
which connect to the internet with multiple child servers supporting my
internal subnets. Is it possible to configure the top level servers
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
ons 2007-05-02 klockan 16:00 -0700 skrev Michael Puckett:
a path outside to reach the server external.com. Will the following
configuration directives route requests to external.com ONLY through
extern-proxy.mydomain while keeping all other requests inside my own
I need to set up my squid instance so that it allows only local content to be cached, EXCEPT for access to
content on a single external server. I have a proxy (extern-proxy.mydomain) that provides a path outside to
reach the server external.com. Will the following configuration directives route
I am running this version of squid:
Squid Cache: Version 2.5.STABLE10
configure options: --enable-large-cache-files --disable-internal-dns
--prefix=/opt/squid --enable-async-io --with-pthreads --with-aio
--enable-icmp --enable-snmp
specifically enabled for large files. My cache_dir is 535GB
Sorry if you see this again, I got a bounced mail from squid-cache.org
Chris Robertson wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Puckett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:25 AM
To: squid-users
Subject: [squid-users] Overflowing filesystems
I am running
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Michael Puckett wrote:
I have been examining both the aufs and ufs versions of squid with truss
and have seen that the async i/o version has thousands more calls to
lseek than the non async version. On looking at the source
Ray,
Thanks for the reply.
No, the system did not start swapping. There was no swap activity at all, and
no disk activity at all. Just a significant amount of CPU activity and a very
long delay.
-mikep
Raymond A. Meijer wrote:
On Tue 28 September 2004 20:05, Michael Puckett wrote:
I
advisable?
I have searched the digests before asking and haven't really found an
answer. Where else should I look?
Best regards,
-mikep
Michael Puckett wrote:
I am having some difficulty with my squid implementation and have come
here to the squid experts for your help.
My application
I have been examining both the aufs and ufs versions of squid with truss
and have seen that the async i/o version has thousands more calls to
lseek than the non async version. On looking at the source of
squidaio_do_read() it does indeed do a lseek() followed by a read()
where the non async read
I am having some difficulty with my squid implementation and have come
here to the squid experts for your help.
My application is to use squid to manage a small collection (10-12) of
large (around 2 GB) objects in the cache which don't change at high
frequency, and deliver these objects to
19 matches
Mail list logo
