Thx Chris. Cost of hardware does not become a big factor here, as it is
directly related to the amount of BW that we save, and also the customer
experience of getting pages faster from the cache.
After looking many of the threads here, I've found that some guys are using
cache stores measured in terabytes. I was wondering if a bigger store was
going to improve the "byte hit ratio", which seems to give the idea of how
much BW was saved.
If I wanted to increase my store size by adding a JBOD of 12 disks using
eSATA, and put another 12 x 160 GB sata disks, and also putting 130GB on
each disk, making a total 2 TB cache store, would that improve the hit
ratio?
I understand that patterns of user behavior greatly changes the "hit ratio",
as we ourselves see it drop during off-peak hours (late into the night), as
users who are online probably visit more and more diverse web content. I
just wanted to check how all the guys out here who are using Squid as a
"forward proxy" are doing in terms of saving BW, and for "regular broadband
internet users", how much BW they were saving with how big of a cache store.
Thanks once again for your response, and hope you and the guys running squid
as I am would share some of their experiences.
Regards
HASSAN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Robertson" <crobertson@xxxxxxx>
To: "Squid Users" <squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 05:46
Subject: Re: Recommended Store Size
Nyamul Hassan wrote:
Thank you Chris for your response. Greatly appreciate your advise.
However, in our system, the LRU Reference Age is around 3.5 days, and our
combined cache_dir is 256GB. Does it mean we should upgrade?
Regards
HASSAN
I can't really give a yes or no answer, as there are a number of factors
at play, including cost, added load on the spindles (drives), memory
constraints, etc. That said, as long as your hit response time is lower
than your current miss response time, adding more cache is not hurting
anything.
Chris
