Is anyone out there running Squid with "aufs" type under heavy load with a single IDE drive? If so what kind of stabillity does it seem to have? How does performance compare under heavy load between "aufs" vs. "ufs" on a single IDE drive system?
It's fine on Linux, and Solaris. We've been running it on countless systems all over the world for five years.
I was told "aufs" was not as stable as "ufs" and should not be used in a production environment.
Who told you that?
Henrik has just stated that it is not unstable to his knowledge, and he has better Squid knowledge than just about anyone in the world. A search of the Squid lists will reveal several of the Squid developers debunking that myth on several occasions throughout the years. What do you need us to say for you to believe it?
Thanks.
Matt
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Matt wrote:
The "aufs" cache_dir type automatically tries to do this when the
harddrive
I/O load is too high.
Is "aufs" type less stable then "ufs"?
Not that I know of.
Regards Henrik
