Chris, Thanks! I'll certainly be switching to aufs before this goes live and reducing the number of dirs. Most of what I read about aufs was all about dual CPUs. Nothing really about performance otherwise. I'll also reduce the size of the cache, didn't know about the 20% performance issue. It's a 70GB drive so I probably should go to about 55GB. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Chris Robertson [mailto:crobertson@xxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:19 PM To: squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Oom-killer and Squid Dave Rhodes wrote: > Thanks for the reply Henrik, > The settings: > > cache_mem 1 GB > cache_dir ufs /cache/normal 60000 9600 256 > Off the subject of the original problem, are you REALLY running a 60GB cache dir with ufs (as opposed to aufs)? I guess it's not the size of the directory, but the number of requests per second, but it seems to me (unless you are caching some pretty big objects) the two would be a little bit related... > I'm not sure about the cache_dir stuff, didn't know if it was better > to have a lot of small dirs or a few large ones, I think I pulled this > setting from someone setting up a cache about the same as mine in the > archives. > From the Squid master himself: http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200701/0433.html What you have looks a bit off suggested values (60000 / 500 = 120)... > I think 60000 is 60000MB or 60GB? > Dave > Chris
