Things have changed somewhat since that algorithm was decided upon. Directory searches were linear and the amount of buffer cache / directory name cache available wasn't huge. Having large directories took time to search and took RAM to cache. Noone's really sat down and done any hard-core tuning - or at least, they've done it, but haven't published the results anywhere. :) Adrian 2008/12/3 Nyamul Hassan <mnhassan@xxxxxxx>: > Why aren't there any (or marginal / insignificant) improvements over 3 > spindles? Is it because squid is a single threaded application? > > On this note, what impact does the L1 and L2 directories have on AUFS > performance? I understand that these are there to control the number of > objects in each folder. But, what would be a good number of files to keep > in a directory, performance wise? > > Regards > HASSAN > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Nyamul Hassan" <mnhassan@xxxxxxx>; "Squid Users" > <squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 04:33 > Subject: Re: Number of Spindles > > >>> sön 2008-11-30 klockan 09:56 +0600 skrev Nyamul Hassan: >>> >>>> "The primary purpose of these tests is to show that Squid's performance >>>> doesn't increase in proportion to the number of disk drives. Excluding >>>> other >>>> factors, you may be able to get better performance from three systems >>>> with >>>> one disk drive each, rather than a single system with three drives." >>> >>> There is a significant difference up to 3 drives in my tests. >>> >> >> Um, can you clarify please? Do you mean difference in experience than >> described, or separate systems are faster up to 3 drives? >> >> Amos >> >> >> > >
