oh here was the link.
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/199709/0253.html initially i was working on differing drive sizes and found this. re-reading it though it doesn't cite the performance for raid0, that was from here http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/singleLevel0-c.html still. i'll give the separate cache directories a go later on and see how that goes. john --- On Wed 06/29, John Halfpenny < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: From: John Halfpenny [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected] Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:29:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [squid-users] Performance question <br>that's very interesting, and totally contrary to what i'd been led to believe (i must try to find the reference i was working from which cites raid 0 as an effective caching solution!)<br><br>there are a couple of performance tweaks i am going to implement on my next installation (i like to start again once i've done experimenting to make sure i get it right), so i'll disable the s/w raid 0 and create some separate cache directories on a dummy run to see how it goes. :)<br><br>john<br><br> --- On Wed 06/29, Matus UHLAR - fantomas < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:<br>From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<br>To: [email protected]<br>Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:53:42 +0200<br>Subject: Re: [squid-users] Performance question<br><br>On 29.06 11:21, John Halfpenny wrote:<br>> what i +did+ say was that it beats a single ata in terms of general drive<br>> performance. you only have to perform a format to see (at a very basic<br>> level i grant you) that it is faster.<br><br>Well, format is something specific (for example because % of backup UX-like<br>FS' superblocks lowers with higher capacity, so one big filesystems has less<br>superblocks than two half-sized FS's), but we don't format that often to get<br>big benefit of speeding up this operation :)<br><br>> your comments about hw raid as not being particularly better are<br>> confusing, as hw raid on a scsi setup will almost certainly beat any ide<br>> configuration you care to mention. this isn't what i've done here, but if<br>> i had the money for a scsi raid card i wouldn't be digging out old kit to<br>> install squid onto. :)<br><br>You are comparing two uncomparable things. Of course, HW array with<br>faster (and SCSI) disks will work faster than <br>slower (and IDE) disks.<br><br>What I want to say is: when we already do have some disks, it's more<br>effective to create filesystems on each of them and use them as separate<br>cache directories than playing with HW/SW stripping.<br><br>And we don't have to buy HW RAID card.<br><br>And if any of disks fails, we'll only loose part of our cache.<br><br>> the downside of a lost cache through raid0 is a risk that we have to face<br>> through lack of funds, and i'm prepared to mount another drive in place of<br>> the raid should it go down, which would only take a few minutes.<br><br>IT will take a few minutes even as a separate drive, and while you'll create<br>FS on it, SQUID can run without that particular cache_dir.<br><br>-- <br>Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/<br>Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.<br>Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.<br>"Two words: Windows survives." - <br>Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior strategist<br>"So does syphillis. Good thing we have penicillin." - Matthew Alton<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com<br>The most personalized portal on the Web!<br><br><br> _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
