On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:22:25 +1000, Jamie Tufnell <diesql@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thank you both for your responses, good to hear I might be on the right > track! > > Amos wrote: >> Just note that for MB or so scale files in memory Squid-2 is a snail, and >> Squid-3 does not yet provide collapsed forwarding. > > We are talking files up-to-1GB in size here. Taking that into > consideration, would you still recommend this architecture? Yes, the architecture itself is sound. This just alters the tuning recommendations. Normally we say faster squid are due to more memory and RAM-caching stuff. For you with MB->GB files in Squid-2 that changes to faster Squid due to limiting RAM-cache to small files, with lots of large fast disks. Squid is limited to a few million (2^24) cache _objects_ so up the that amount of GB files can be cached on disk for one Squid. The more disks you can be reading from in parallel the better, 3 disks is apparently optimal for general use, but you can test that and see what suits with your objects and load. Amos
