On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is more of a filesystem question, then it is an operating
system/distro question.
Based on my research, the benchmarks on the web claim ReiserFS to provide
up to 15-20% faster results.
I've not had any time to do any benchmarking. My cache is currently
running on an ext3 partition running
under SLES8 SP3
Regardless of which filesystem you select the most important tuning aspect
for filesystem performance for Squid (after selection of hardware) is the
noatime mount option.
A more complete list, in priority order:
1. Amount of memory available
2. Number of harddrives used for cache
3. noatime mount option
4. type of filesystem (except for a few really bad choices).
On systems with syncronous directory updates (Solaris, some BSD versions)
1.5 Mount option to enable asyncronous directory updates, or preferably
a filesystem meta journal on a separate device taking the heat of
directory updates.
Regards
Henrik
