> On Sun, Feb 04, 2007, Manoj Rajkarnikar wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > > > Part of the work I did quite a while ago was to try and allow people to > > > store very large objects on another spool. I guessed that the large objects > > > were accessed less frequently and so could happily be stored in a UNIX > > > filesystem. The file open rate for a "normal" UNIX filesystem is what, 50 ish > > > requests a second for a single-spindle disk filesystem? Maybe slightly higher > > > if all your directory entries are cached? > > > > > > Research has mostly shown that to be true; ie the overhead of UNIX filesystems > > > becomes less of a concern after the object size grows past a couple hundred > > > kilobytes. I'd quote the references but I don't have them handy - I'll make > > > sure they appear in the document library once the new Squid website is released. > > > > > > So as long as you're able to store small objects seperately from large objects > > > and make sure one doesn't starve IO from the other then you'll be able to both > > > enjoy your cake and eat it too. :P > > > > That would be a great feature to have, to be able to put larger objects in > > a separate space. Thanks. :) On 04.02.07 13:57, Adrian Chadd wrote: > You already can, to some extent. See the cache_dir configuration > information; there's a "max object" size parameter. cache_dirs are checked > in order so just have your small object stores have a max objsize > parameter of something other than -1. however, having option min-size would also be nice, to be ablke to configure cache_dirs even more. -- 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. It's now safe to throw off your computer.
