Search squid archive

Re: cache_peer weighting

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Amos Jeffries wrote:
No, its just the most modern and one thats shown some promise in recent
benchmarking earlier this year by a large-scale user. Thier exact results
are buried back in the mailing list somewhere.
There are other algorithms, with different properties that suite differing
siutaions.


I'll take a look at CARP, thanks =]

The config manual seems to suggest otherwise:

"cache_peer 172.16.1.123 sibling 3129 5500 weight=2"

Or am I assuming too much here?  I could be getting the wrong end of the
stick; but it seemed like using a similar cache_peer entries to the
above, but with a couple having the weight=100 didn't seem to change the
way squid was choosing the cache_peer to use.

I'm not sure which config manual you got that from. The Official
Authoritative one does not include that text.
http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.6/cfgman/cache_peer.html
http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.0/cfgman/cache_peer.html

ViSolve.. heh

Thanks again Amos!


--
Tony Dodd, Systems Administrator

Last.fm | http://www.last.fm
Karen House 1-11 Baches Street
London N1 6DL

check out my music taste at:
http://www.last.fm/user/hawkeviper

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Samba]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Linux USB]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux