If your redirectors are CPU bound then just adding more of them won't help as the CPU is your bottleneck..
Having very many redirectors is a good thing for redirectors which may wait for external data. Regards Henrik fre 2003-02-21 klockan 19.12 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > You are running on a newer SMP Apple machine, right? Have you considered > just bumping up the number of processes to the compiled max (32?) to ensure > that you don't run into this problem. If you have a high load-average, you > likely have one of two problems (or both): > > - Too little horsepower or a uniprocessor box. > - Not enough memory & much CPU usage is from excessive swapping. > > There are a lot of people who say you don't need an SMP box for Squid, but > this is not true in the case of a CPU-bound redirector load. How much > system memory do you have and how much are your redirectors using? Have you > considered monitoring load average and memory pressure with something like > MRTG or another graphing program to figure out where your system's breaking > point is? > > Adding more processes obviously means you are also adding more context > switches, but if Squid is feeding your redirectors faster than they can > respond, you likely want to keep the number high for functionality's sake > (but if the performance goes straight to hell, look for more resources). > > One other thing I have always thought is that in some cases it would be nice > if Squid could do selective caching of existing "queries" to the redirector > process to avoid the communication latency and CPU requirements of the > redirector process for all accesses (wishful thinking now, but who knows, > might be possible in the future). > > Sean > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Donovan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 7:02 AM > To: squid-users > Subject: [squid-users] All redirector processes are busy > > > greetings > I get this message and it says > "consider increasing the number of redirector processes in your config > file" > > okay,..I've done that. i started out with 3 and i am up to 20,...and i > still get it every once in a while. i usually ignore it because things > seem to work fine. however someone on my network is getting delayed. > > Is this normal or is there a better way to streamline the child > processes. > > stable 2.5 > OSX 10.2.3 server > Cache dir 16gb > cache mem 256 mb > > Also the cpu usage is always running above 60%. most of the time it's > between 80 and 100%. The docs specify that the cpu speed isn't as > critical as the drive specs. but it looks to me like i could use a > quicker processor. > your thoughts > > --jeff -- Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MARA Systems AB, Sweden
