Michel Santos wrote:
You can add kern.maxfilesperproc=8192 in /etc/sysctl.conf to increase your
squid file descriptors to 8192.
You may also have to change your kern.maxfiles parameter to say about 8192
or 16384.
all this sugestions are kind of high, hardly you get over 2000 open files
unless you have a heavy loaded server, this starts somewhere over 6-10mb/s
sustained http througput when you may need more open files
High bandwidth, high latency connections (satellite links) also eat file
descriptors quite quickly.
when you use coss you do not get even close to half of it
on FBSD you ever should query your system as with sysctl kern.openfiles to
see what is going on and then when *really* coming to the limit you might
like to raise it a little and otherwise not
Good advice for any setup.
Well if your proxy serves less than 30 requests per second, then ufs
storage is fine. However if your demands are above 30 requests per second,
then either diskd and aufs will be good. However you may need to tweak
your kernel to implement diskd for FreeBSD.
you say it so easy as if were that easy, firstable what your machine
supports and needs is relative to the machine's processing power. There is
no such 30 req/sec limit or switch-over-rule ...
For what it's worth, the 30 requests/second suggestion is straight from
the most active developer on the Squid-users mailing list:
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200701/0433.html
(see close to the bottom of that message).
but I agree, on FreeBSd you might consider diskd but the difference is
small and depends on the machine and the throughgoing http-traffic and if
your HD can really take the load (or better: answer the requests in time)
From what I understand, FreeBSD 5 and up does quite well with aufs.
Obviously a number of people are experiencing great success using COSS.
so my opinion hear is using ufs is good and stable and fits high load for
whom is not a specialist in system fine tuning, if you are knowing nasty
kernel stuff *and* have really nasty hardware and like to get the most out
of it then you should go diskd - but - better having a perfect UPS and a
server which never crashs, you may loss your cache content, anyway it's a
long way to get this 5-10% more (in comparism to ufs)
aufs? hands off
See the above linked message. There is almost no reason to use ufs.
if you want to tune diskd read first a lot of postgres sql tuning matter
which are the only lonly guys which seem ever having worked serious
(except me of course ;) ) with this IPC stuff on FreeBSD. What you find on
squid's website regarding FreeBSD makes diskd work on old versions but not
tuned.
Suggested settings are always welcome, but the most general advice is
available from http://wiki.squid-cache.org/BestOsForSquid. Note there
are not much in the way of OS tuning tips. Unless you are really
pushing the boundaries of what Squid is capable of, they just won't buy
you much.
michel
...
Chris
