No. The overhead is in the form of memory structures.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Sean Allen <[email protected]>wrote: > I understand that. Let me rephrase that question. When using file storage, > am I correct in assuming, that the overhead uses additional space on the > volume that the file itself is on? > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Stephen Wood <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ultimately the amount of overhead space needed is determined by the >> number of objects you have. The overhead is about 1k per object. You can >> read more at *Sizing Your >> Cache*<https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/3.0/tutorial/sizing_your_cache.html>on >> the varnish doc. >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Sean Allen >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I know when using malloc storage, that we end up based on our object >>> size, about another 100% percent memory to store additional booking info. >>> So where we have a >>> >>> -s malloc, 6g >>> >>> We need a total of 12g available to the OS. >>> >>> If I switch to >>> >>> -s file, 10g >>> >>> Do I need 20g of HD space available on that drive? >>> I'm unclear how the issues with malloc map to file storage backend. >>> For example, why does file default to 50% sizing of the volume? >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> varnish-misc mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc >>> >> >> > > > -- > > Ce n'est pas une signature > > _______________________________________________ > varnish-misc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc > -- <http://www.varnish-software.com/> *Per Buer* CEO | Varnish Software AS Phone: +47 958 39 117 | Skype: per.buer We Make Websites Fly!
_______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
