mån 2009-08-17 klockan 10:28 +0200 skrev Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Is there any problem with current scheme where they are cached by underlying
OS' cache?
On 17.08.09 23:36, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
Yes, there is a big difference in latency and CPU usage for very hot
objects, at least
ons 2009-08-19 klockan 08:59 +0200 skrev Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
so you expect it to be mostly usefull on ufs cache_dirs?
No the opposite, non-ufs cache dirs.
the ufs cache_dir type is very fast when using the OS filesystem cache
and do not benefit from this change (but is also the only thing
fre 2009-08-07 klockan 13:12 +0200 skrev Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
fixing in what way? to cache objects from disk in squid's memory in addition
to disk cache?
On 16.08.09 22:24, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
Yes.
Is there any problem with current scheme where they are cached by underlying
OS'
mån 2009-08-17 klockan 10:28 +0200 skrev Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Is there any problem with current scheme where they are cached by underlying
OS' cache?
Yes, there is a big difference in latency and CPU usage for very hot
objects, at least unless you use the ufs cache_dir type which on the
fre 2009-08-07 klockan 13:12 +0200 skrev Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
fixing in what way? to cache objects from disk in squid's memory in addition
to disk cache?
Yes.
Regards
Henrik
tis 2009-08-04 klockan 15:17 +0800 skrev Adrian Chadd:
The squid memory cache doesn't work the way people seem to think it
does. Once objects leave the memory cache pool they're out for good.
On 04.08.09 10:01, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
Fixing that in Squid-3. Actually already done and
On 8/3/09, Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
so you have 4GiB of RAM and confiured 3GB for squid's mem_cache?
when that get filled up, you either start swapping or get ouf ot RAM and
your squid will crash...
On 02.08.09 21:28, Waitman Gobble
2009/8/4 Hery Setiawan yellowha...@gmail.com:
maybe in his mind (and my mind too actually), with big mem_cache the
file transfer will be transferred faster. But using that big for me
it's too much, since I only have 4GB of RAM and thousand workstation
connect with my squid.
The squid memory
tis 2009-08-04 klockan 15:17 +0800 skrev Adrian Chadd:
The squid memory cache doesn't work the way people seem to think it
does. Once objects leave the memory cache pool they're out for good.
Fixing that in Squid-3. Actually already done and tested, just polishing
it up for submission.
Adrian Chadd wrote:
2009/8/4 Hery Setiawan yellowha...@gmail.com:
maybe in his mind (and my mind too actually), with big mem_cache the
file transfer will be transferred faster. But using that big for me
it's too much, since I only have 4GB of RAM and thousand workstation
connect with my
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
so you have 4GiB of RAM and confiured 3GB for squid's mem_cache?
when that get filled up, you either start swapping or get ouf ot RAM and
your squid will crash...
On 02.08.09 21:28, Waitman Gobble wrote:
i've kept an eye on it, and i agree that it may start
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I hope you know what are you doing by configuring that big cache_mem...
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/SquidMemory
hmmm, i've read that. i don't by the way,
however, nothing bad has yet happened, mem utilization seems ok, cache
hits are up. but it's
On 02.08.09 01:59, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I hope you know what are you doing by configuring that big cache_mem...
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/SquidMemory
hmmm, i've read that. i don't by the way,
yes, it seems soo..
however, nothing bad has yet
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 02.08.09 01:59, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I hope you know what are you doing by configuring that big cache_mem...
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/SquidMemory
hmmm, i've read that. i don't by the way,
Waitman Gobble wrote:
Amos Jeffries wrote:
Andres Salazar wrote:
Hello,
Ive setup my first reverse proxy to accelerate a site, ive used wget
to spider the entire site several times and noticed that even after
running it some files never get cached like html files! I presume it
is because the
Hery Setiawan wrote:
@waitman
are you not kidding with cache_mem 3008 MB, that's pretty big mem you
know since the suggested for max memory only 32MB. you don't want to
save the cache in memory, do you?
hi,
it's on a machine that does absolutely nothing else. it ran for a few
days
Hello,
Ive setup my first reverse proxy to accelerate a site, ive used wget
to spider the entire site several times and noticed that even after
running it some files never get cached like html files! I presume it
is because the htmls dont have the correct cache headers.
It didnt even want to
Andres Salazar wrote:
Hello,
Ive setup my first reverse proxy to accelerate a site, ive used wget
to spider the entire site several times and noticed that even after
running it some files never get cached like html files! I presume it
is because the htmls dont have the correct cache headers.
Amos Jeffries wrote:
Andres Salazar wrote:
Hello,
Ive setup my first reverse proxy to accelerate a site, ive used wget
to spider the entire site several times and noticed that even after
running it some files never get cached like html files! I presume it
is because the htmls dont have the
Hello,
Ive setup my first reverse proxy to accelerate a site, ive used wget
to spider the entire site several times and noticed that even after
running it some files never get cached like html files! I presume it
is because the htmls dont have the correct cache headers.
It didnt even want to
20 matches
Mail list logo
