On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:54:00 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
<uhlar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[cut]
> is that one quad-core with hyperthreading, two quad-cores without HT or
two
> dual-cores with HT? We apparently should count HT CPU's as one, not two.
2 Xeon Quad-cores (4 cores per/processor, 8 total), no HT...
[cut]
>> > total used free shared buffers
>> > cached
>> > Mem: 32148 2238 29910 0 244
>> > 823
>> > -/+ buffers/cache: 1169 30978
>> > Swap: 15264 0 15264
>
> swap is quite useless here I'd say...
Uptime was 1/2 min. Look at it now:
$ free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 32151 31996 155 0 1891 24108
-/+ buffers/cache: 5996 26155
Swap: 15264 6 15258
[cut]
> I'd say that the 73.5 Gb disk should be used only for OS, logs etc.
I did it.
[cut]
>> I'm not to up on the L1/L2 efficiencies, but "64 256" or higher L1 seems
>> to be better for larger dir sizes.
OK, I will try...
[cut]
> Note that for 300GiB HDD you will be using max 250, more probably 200 and
> some ppl would advise 150GiB of cache. Leave some space for metadata and
> some for reserve - filesystems may benefit of it.
I always configure (to use) only 80% HDD...
[cut]
>> For a quad or higher CPU machine, you may do well to have multiple Squid
>> running (one per 2 CPUs or so). One squid doing the caching on the 300GB
>> drives and one on the smaller ~100 GB drives (to get around a small bug
>> where mismatched AUFS dirs cause starvation in small dir), peered
>> together with no-proxy option to share info without duplicating cache.
Cool! Thanks...
--
Herbert
