On Wednesday 06 August 2003 17.58, SSCR Internet Admin wrote: > yeah thats true. but IMOP, using null fs and holding those object > in RAM "should" give a better squid performance or maybe a good hit > rate since squid functions the same way as having a null fs or > having a big cache_dir except no IO bound problems (since this is > the hindrance). I asked this coz i have seen on cachemgr that only > have 10%-19% hit rate using null fs (with 250MB cache_mem)compared > to 25%-45% using cache_dir (with 250MB cache_mem).
Makes sense. There is higher pressure on cache_mem than cache_dir, and even more so when you do not use a cache_dir (i.e. cache_dir null is a cludge to not have any cache_dir). The cache_mem is not only used for cached objects, but also in-transit objects. Usually in-transit objects use only 16 KB per ongoing request but in some situations more may be used. What you can try is using a ramdrive instead of a large cache_mem. This may provide a higher hit ratio/MB. -- Donations welcome if you consider my Free Squid support helpful. https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=hno%40squid-cache.org If you need commercial Squid support or cost effective Squid or firewall appliances please refer to MARA Systems AB, Sweden http://www.marasystems.com/, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
