On 12.10 10:03, trainier@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > The fact is, we're small enough that it hasn't sorely affected us much at > all. My access log for squid grows to about 4-10 GB in a week. wow, that's very much of data transferred in a week. > I made it adimently clear that I would only retain 1 weeks worth of access > logging information. 1-2 weeks are recommended, if you can set up a few FAST disks. > On a side-note. Your 4x33 are set up as RAID or LVM? neither one is a good idea. http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/FAQ/FAQ-3.html#ss3.11 you should use each drive as separate cache_dir, unless you use mirroring (which is useless in many cases) [someone other...] > In my cache server, every mount is set "noatime". Since the server is > dedicated to the web caching, I don't need the "last time someone accessed > a given file". the 'noatime' option for most filesystems does not matter. > 4x33 GB UW-SCSI2 drives. I fills almost my entire RAM. My cache_mem is set > > to only 50 MBs, since the object table goes quite large into the memory. > But, why mind? The disk access is fast enough (avg. 9 ms to access cached > objects). if your computes has enough of memory left for metadata cache (inodes and directories where squid data are left), it's OK. if not, you have huge performance bottleneck here (and with only 50 MB of cache_mem, buy more memory). -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@xxxxxxxxxxx ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
