It seems that your system is finally getting healthy.
The fact that the resident memory is 371 MB means that you have no disk cache or Squid is hardly used, or both. But look at that red 6.4GB virtual memory which indicates that Squid can grow to 6.4 GB and even more when it is used. So next step is to start using the proxy and monitor the process size. Marcus On 09/09/2015 10:24 AM, Jorgeley Junior wrote:
changed cache_mem to 3GB, after one hour, this is my htop: 2015-09-09 9:39 GMT-03:00 Jorgeley Junior <jorge...@gmail.com <mailto:jorge...@gmail.com>>: changed cache_mem to 3GB, after one hour, this is my htop: 2015-09-09 9:34 GMT-03:00 Jorgeley Junior <jorge...@gmail.com <mailto:jorge...@gmail.com>>: changed cache_mem to 3GB, after one hour, this is my htop: 2015-09-08 21:43 GMT-03:00 Jorgeley Junior <jorge...@gmail.com <mailto:jorge...@gmail.com>>: ok, I'll do it 2015-09-08 21:30 GMT-03:00 Marcus Kool <marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com>>: On 09/08/2015 09:23 PM, Jorgeley Junior wrote: ok, read that already, i set cache_mem to 5GB, so is not ok? No. Squid will use more than 6 GB with cache_mem set to 5 GB. I suggest that you use 2500 MB and after Squid runs for 1 hour, see what the total process size is. Marcus 2015-09-08 20:25 GMT-03:00 Marcus Kool <marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com> <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com>>>: On 09/08/2015 10:39 AM, Jorgeley Junior wrote: I have 8GB physical memory and my swap is 32GB. I didn't increase the swap yet, should I? You must start with reading the memory FAQ: http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/SquidMemory The general rule for all processes applies: make sure that a process is *not* larger than 80% of the physical memory. In your case, you must reduce cache_mem and make sure that Squid does not use more than 6 GB. A swap of 32 GB is fine for a system with 8 GB physical memory. I also suggest to consider a memory upgrade. Marcus 2015-09-08 9:23 GMT-03:00 Marcus Kool <marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com> <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com>> <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com> <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com>>>>: On 09/08/2015 08:11 AM, Jorgeley Junior wrote: Thank you all, this is the output: vm.overcommit_memory = 0 vm.swappiness = 60 I have a Redhat 6.6 The value of vm.overcommit_memory is OK. The default value for vm.swappiness is way too high. It means that Linux swaps out parts of processes when they are idle for a while. For better overall system performance, you want those processes in memory as long as possible and not swapped out so I recommend to change it to 15. This implies that the OS has 15% of the physical memory available for file system buffers which is plenty. You only mentioned that the swap is 32 GB. What is the size of the physical memory ? Did you already increase the swap ? Marcus 2015-09-05 15:08 GMT-03:00 Marcus Kool <marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com> <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com>> <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com> <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com>>> <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com> <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com>> <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com> <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com <mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com>>>>>: On Linux, an important sysctl parameter that determines how Linux behaves with respect to VM allocation is vm.overcommit_memory (should be 0). And vm.swappiness is important to tune servers (should be 10-15). Which version of Linux do you have and what is the output of sysctl -a | grep -e vm.overcommit_memory -e vm.swappiness Marcus On 09/04/2015 07:04 PM, Jorgeley Junior wrote: Thanks Amos, i will increase the swap Em 04/09/2015 17:22, "Amos Jeffries" <squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz>> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz>>> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz>> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz>>>> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz>> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz>>> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz>> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz> <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz <mailto:squ...@treenet.co.nz>>>>>> escreveu: On 5/09/2015 7:16 a.m., Jorgeley Junior wrote: > Thanks Amos, my swap is 32GB, so that's causing the error as you said. > Which is the better choice: increase the swap size or reduce the > cache_mem??? > Both probably. 128 GB swap I suspect you will need. Increase the swap so the system lets Squid use more virtual memory. Decrease the cache_mem so that Squid does not actually end up using the swap for its main worker processes. That is a real killer for performance. Amos _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org> <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org>> <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org> <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org>>> <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org> <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org>> <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org> <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org>>>> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users -- *_ _* *_ _* _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org> <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org>> <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org> <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org>>> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users -- *_ _* *_ _* _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org> <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org>> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users -- *_ _* *_ _* _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org <mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users -- *_ _* *_ _* -- *_ _* *_ _* -- *_ _* *_ _* -- *_ _* *_ _*
_______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
