Hey all, haven't heard anything on this and could really use some help. :) You can disregard the HIT related questions, as once I placed this into a full scale test, it started hitting from memory wonderfully (~40% offload from the origin) The config works great, to a point. It fills up my memory up, but keeps going way past the "cache_mem" that I set. I've dropped it down to 24GB, but it chews up all the memory on the system (32GB) and then continues into the swap and chews that up too. At that point, squid hangs, crashes then reloads and the cache has to spend another few hours building everything up into memory again. Like I said though, it works great...until the mem is full... I'm now going to test with a 4GB cache_mem and see what she does. Can anyone offer any suggestions for the best, most stable way of running a memory-only cache? is 'cache_dir null /tmp' actually what I want to be using here? The SO_FAIL's concern me, but I'm not sure if they should? Thanks! David --- On Sat, 4/4/09, David Tosoff <dtosoff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: David Tosoff <dtosoff@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Memory-only Squid questions > To: squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Received: Saturday, April 4, 2009, 3:04 PM > Hi all, I've got a 64-bit Reverse-proxy squid running on > Ubuntu as of yesterday (3.0Stable13). I've got it > configured how I want it as far as I can tell. > > I've compiled the cache_dir null type in, and > configured it as "cache_dir null /tmp", as I do > not want to cache to disk on this machine at all. > I want all the data to be cached in memory, but all I'm > seeing in my access.log is TCP_IMS_HIT & TCP_MISS. No > TCP_MEM_HIT for anything. Now, I know TCP_IMS_HIT is > ambiguous and can indicate IMS_HIT from memory or disk, but > in this case where I am "cache_dir null /tmp", are > these IMS_HIT coming from memory, or am I misunderstanding > the 'null' type? > Also, the items that are recieving TCP_MISS are items that > should be in MEM_HIT all the time, as they are loaded with > EVERY page load (static menu, page structure images, etc). > This concerns me, as in a ufs or aufs cache_dir, these items > hit from memory.... > Also, in store.log, I'm only seeing RELEASE & > SO_FAIL. > > I do see memory usage increasing when watching > "top", which is good. I'm just curious if > these indicators in the logs are something to be concerned > about in this type of config. > > NOTEABLE CONFIG OPTIONS: > cache_mem 28672 MB > maximum_object_size_in_memory 150 KB -- My objects are > between 2KB - 20KB (so, 150 is a limit that likely should > never be reached) > memory_replacement_policy heap GDSF > cache_dir null /tmp > > > Is this the best way to go about a memory only cache? > I've seen a few posts re: using RAM disks for cache_dir > instead... > > Thanks All, > > David > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving > junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on > Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for > free at http://mail.yahoo.ca __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
