On Wed, Sep 19, 2007, Ding Deng wrote: > > It'd mean more RAM used to track expired objects, and more CPU to walk > > the list and delete unneeded objects.. > > And probably longer disk seek time. Depends how its done. Doing it on a busy UFS might mess with your service times. > Agreed. We still have to make sure that cache_dirs match server memory > however, as I'm seeing a scenario right now that if we make full use of > all the available disks, a single Squid instance will eat up dozens of > gigabytes of physical memory, which is far more than what we've > installed on the server. Squid isn't exactly memory-frugal at the present time. I've been thinking of ways to improve its index memory usage. > I'm also seeing a scenario that 10GB of cache_dirs get roughly the same > hit ratio as 30GB of cache_dirs due to cache pollution, so cache_dir > which is larger than necessary is not always a good idea. Yup! Well, caching has diminishing returns with cache size if you're just caching small objects. Adrian -- - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid Support - - $25/pm entry-level bandwidth-capped VPSes available in WA -
