ons 2006-08-09 klockan 11:41 -0400 skrev Steve Snyder: > What do the new epoll and COSS options offer to me as the administrator of > a lightly-loaded Squid server? Anything? Not much. Both are targeted at highly loaded servers where CPU and disk I/O is bottlenecks. > I usually read of epoll in the context of being recommended for a Squid > server with very high CPU utilization. I'm not clear on the advantages > of COSS over other disk storage schemes. In short COSS reduces disk I/O by trading cache size. > I am currently using UFS on a single ReiserFS-formatted cache, on Linux. > This setup is working fine, but I am always looking for improvement. > (Given that I do not suffer from high CPU use, improvement would be > defined as reduced latency in cache look-ups.) Then the first thing to look into would be cache_mem setting and amount of physical ram in the box. Need to be a good balance. > Any thoughts on what these new option might mean for a lightly-loaded > server? Nothing. Well,, epoll is likely to be used anyway, doesn't hurt. But also doesn't bring you much if CPU isn't a problem. Regards Henrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
