Oh. You're running 4 seperate caches?
Yeah, I couldn't see why anyone would want to RAID squid cache. :-)
Tim Rainier
Information Services, Kalsec, INC
trainier@xxxxxxxxxx
"Rodrigo A B Freire" <zazgyn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
10/12/2005 01:24 PM
To
<trainier@xxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: Which the best OS for Squid?
Hello, Tim!
The disks ae completely stand-alone. No volume manager, no RAID:
#/dev/sdb /usr/local/squid/var/cacheb reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0
#/dev/sdc /usr/local/squid/var/cachec reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0
#/dev/sdd /usr/local/squid/var/cached reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0
#/dev/sde /usr/local/squid/var/cachee reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0
I've read somewere that Squid is a worst-case scenario for RAIDs, due
to
the atomicity of the files and they're sparsed.
Best regards,
Rodrigo.
----- Original Message -----
From: <trainier@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Which the best OS for Squid?
> Oh yeah. I definitely see the advantages.
>
> 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.
> I made it adimently clear that I would only retain 1 weeks worth of
access
> logging information.
>
> When it comes down to it, I would've never moved this box into
production
> if we ran anything else off from it. It's dedicated to caching and
> blocking content (squidguard).
> I have had very few complaints on performance (with the exception of the
> period when we were testing with authentication routines).
>
> On a side-note. Your 4x33 are set up as RAID or LVM?
>
> Tim Rainier
> Information Services, Kalsec, INC
> trainier@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> "Rodrigo A B Freire" <zazgyn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 10/11/2005 10:52 PM
>
> To
> <squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: Which the best OS for Squid?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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".
>
> BTW, FYI.. On my cache.log startup:
>
> Max Swap size: 132592000 KB
>
> 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).
>
> The OS lies in a 9-GB disk drive. Logs rotated and compressed
> (access.log and cache.log, don't log store.log) daily. Monthly, FTPed to
> another server, backup and remove the old ones from cache machine
> [access.log may reach 1 GB/day].
>
> My cache occupies entire hard disks, with no partitions [mkfs.reiser4
> (yeah!) -f /dev/sdb, sdc, sdd, sde].
>
> The advantage? Well, If I want to zero the cache swap, I just stop
> squid, umount the partition, kick a mkfs and re-mount drives. Elapsed
> time?
> 10 seconds, I say.
> rm -f /usr/local/squid/var/cachexx ?
> Damn, it may take up to 20 minutes (with a 27 GB cache_dir).
>
> Another thing I have into account is the fact of the intense I/O in
> the
> cache dir. Definitely, I don't feel comfy about all this I/O in my OS
main
>
> disk. And, placing in different disks, the log writting isn't
concomitant
> with a eventual disk op cache-related.
>
> A power loss might led to a long fsck (the cache mounts aren't
> FSCKed),
> which results to long time bringing the machine back up and lots of
users
> whining (altough we use WPAD with quite good results when directing the
> traffic to another server in case of failure).
>
> My 2 cents: I would consider seriously creating a separate partition
> to
> the cache (if a second or more disks isn't an option). Both of them with
> "noatime" ;-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rodrigo.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <trainier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Which the best OS for Squid?
>
>
>> First off, there's no possible way my cache would "fill" the '/'
>> partition. There's a cache size directive in squid that's designed to
>> limit the amount of disk space usage.
>> Not to mention the fact that I have a utility script that runs every 15
>> minutes, which pages me if partitions are >= to 90% their capacity. I
>> mean, honestly, who would run a 146GB cache?
>>
>> Second off, it's a performance thing. The fact is, the box and the web
>> run quite fine. This was a test server that was thrown into production
>> because it works.
>> My plans to upgrade the device are set, I'm just trying to find the
time
>> to do them. :-)
>>
>> Thirdly, can someone PLEASE answer my question about setting "/" to
>> 'noatime', as opposed to avoiding it by telling me how and why what I'm
>> doing
>> is stupid?
>>
>> Once again, are there pitfalls to having '/' set to 'noatime'?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Tim Rainier
>> Information Services, Kalsec, INC
>> trainier@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>> "Joost de Heer" <sanguis@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 10/11/2005 05:07 PM
>> Please respond to
>> sanguis@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>> To
>> trainier@xxxxxxxxxx
>> cc
>> squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject
>> Re: Which the best OS for Squid?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> trainier@xxxxxxxxxx said:
>>> What if the squid cache is stored on the "/" partition?
>>
>> That's a bad idea. Your cache could potentially fill up the root
>> partition.
>>
>>> Wouldn't that be a hideous mistake to set "/" to 'noatime' ?
>>
>> Wouldn't it be a hideous mistake to put the cache on the same partition
> as
>> "/"?
>>
>> Joost
