> You want minBlocksFree set to as small as possible. That way you can >get as many articles as possible in the cache. But you want to make sure >minBlocksFree is big enough so that nntpcache doesn't run out space before >expire removes anything. Exactly :-) However, as I said, nntpcache doesn't seem to do too good of a job expiring on my system, so I'm trying to give myself a good buffer. 10Mblocks is only 5MB so we're not talking a huge amount here. > I don't think you have enough cache space for the type of reader volume >you handle. I don't have enough cache space for all the porn my readers are downloading :-) > What is you cache efficiency, btw? You might want to reset >the stats when the cache is full, to see what your efficieny is like with >a full cache. I suspect that you are getting less than 20%. Adding more >drives to cache can often pay for itself. I found that there is >cache size threshold (depending on the size of your readership, and the >amount of available articles on the home nntp server), after which >efficiency starts to really improve. I'm currently at 32%. Hum, my stats appreas to be broken: article <stats@nntpcache> 220 0 article <stats@nntpcache> Newsgroups: nntpcache.statistics Message-ID: <stats@nntpcache> Date: 16 Aug 1998 20:02:36 EDT Subject: NNTPCACHE Statistics From: NNTPCACHE Statistics <nntpcache> . What we found was that an empty nntpcache provides better performance than no nntpcache at all for low-speed readers. The theory at the time was that because the bandwidth from server-nntpcache was far greater than the bandwidth from nntpcache-readers, the nntpcache would get the article and then feed it in a constant datastream to the user, whereas in the direct user-server connection there may be stop/starts due to net burps. This is the main reason we run nntpcache, not for any bandwidth reduction. However, you're absolutely right, I do need more disk for the cache. I just don't have any more disk around at the moment :-) Evan
