No SSL. Sorry for the Graphs not available in openoffice...
Anyway: we will probably go forward with 3GB mem_cahce settings now and I can observe the "system for some more time" - assuming it stays stable at the predicted 7.5-8GB RSS... Martin > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rouss...@measurement-factory.com] > Sent: Freitag, 18. Juli 2014 16:41 > To: squid-users@squid-cache.org > Cc: Martin Sperl > Subject: Re: [squid-users] squid: Memory utilization higher than expected > since moving from 3.3 to 3.4 and Vary: working > > On 07/18/2014 04:09 AM, Martin Sperl wrote: > > > So the memory foot-print stayed fairly stable at around 10GB for > > about 2.5 month (or at least a long portion of that time) > > OK, no leak then. > > As you said, the gradually increasing overhead per cache entry that you > have reported earlier does not quite match the "stable footprint" claim > you are making above, so something still does not add up, and I really > hesitate offering any more theories based on shaky input data. > > Does your Squid use SSL encryption/decryption? > > > > I have posted the raw data as an excel sheet including graphs to the > > ticket: http://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4084 > > Thank you for sharing the data. Just FYI: My Libreoffice on Ubuntu > cannot display those graphs (but others can probably view them on > Windows, and it is probably possible to reconstruct them from raw data > as well). > > > Cheers, > > Alex. This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp
