On fre, 2007-08-24 at 12:41 -0700, Nicole wrote: > > Here is an example from another server. As you can see, /cache0 seems to be > getting very little of the data on 2 different servers. Found out of the range > I would assume based on their storage size. I am curious if my choices for L1/L2 > effect what sized files go where? (like Coss seems to do) L1/L2 does not have any effect on cache_dir selection. Just how many files the "*ufs" stores place in each subdirectory. > Also, I think this has been asked before, but what criteria should be used to > decide the settings for L1/L2? I think the defaults are based on much smaller > disks, but does that matter? l2 = 256 L1 = at least cache_dir size * 2 / 256 / 256 / 13KB, or ca cache_dir in GB * 2. (13 KB is the estimated average object size) Note: You can not change L2 without erasing the cache. But you can change L1 as long as it's been big enough to fit the stored content.. > It would be great if some math for this was in > the .default file to help. It seems like my testing of different sizes has > resulted in different amounts of storage utilization some how. It should not have any effect, other than that it L1 is too small then Squid stores more than L2 files in each subdirectory which may have a slight negative performance impact depending on the kind of filesystem used.. Regards Henrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
