Manoj Rajkarnikar disse na ultima mensagem: > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Michel Santos wrote: > > 16MB. we analyzed the access logs for size distribution and the hitrate > and number of request distribution shows only very few requests are made > for objects of size greater than 20MB and every big object requested will > take up a large cache space where there could have been more smaller > objects. > >> I use 150-250Gb for cache_dirs and still feel it too small, but I permit >> 700MB max so a complete iso image can get cached >> > > objects of that size is rarely downloaded here and is not worth caching at > all. may not be true in your situation. > depends how you look at it disk space is cheap and serving one 650MB object is a fat win even if it happens only twice a month > use scalar squid log analyzer and analyze your access logs daily and > you can find out what max object size is better suited for you. I rotate > the access log daily and have wrote a simple shell script that'll analyze > the access log daily and generate a webpage. can send it if you like. it > uses scalar.awk (downloadable). > nice and thanks for you kind offer, but I turn logging completly off, even if the performance boost is not very impressive I do not need to take care of log files and I am really not so sure if this does not hurt users privacy, but main reason I am lazy and like performance ;) ... **************************************************** Datacenter Matik http://datacenter.matik.com.br E-Mail e Data Hosting Service para Profissionais. ****************************************************
