On Wednesday 09 February 2005 11:22, Elsen Marc wrote: > > I was wondering how good can be having a huge storage size > > for caching. > > Not good , probably even bad. > Let alone RAM requirements (see FAQ). > I guess "huge" is a bad number to discuss > > Particular staying with the first part of your question > Squid efficiency will not increase with a random pointed big cache size. > Let alone the RAM you would need (see FAQ). > > The 'average advise' in terms of maximising efficiency is to choose > a cache size corresponding to one week of traffic generated by your user > community. IMO this is not sooo easy and cache size does matter When speaking about dynamic content and small objects well i agree but you can cache large objects from ftp servers, as well as avis and mpegs and iso which can drastically improve your cache performance and still reduce drastically as well your link usage, probably such objects do not change in months so why refresh them? When using only one cache server probably hard to do but you can use two frontends and you limit one of them to store small objects as found on normal pages and the other one caches only large objects and then you can use squid.conf technics to get best out of it. Hans > > M. -- _______________________________________________________ Infomatik (18)8112.7007 http://info.matik.com.br Mensagens não assinadas com GPG não são minhas. Messages without GPG signature are not from me. _______________________________________________________
Attachment:
pgpkOsYIFdCwS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
