> Hery Setiawan wrote: >> are you not kidding with cache_mem 3008 MB, that's pretty big mem you >> know since the suggested for max memory only 32MB. you don't want to >> save the cache in memory, do you? > it's on a machine that does absolutely nothing else. it ran for a few > days with the defaults, load average 0, memory usage nothing, disk usage > nothing, was serving files and handling traffic but hit rate around 18%. > I felt kind of obscene running an expensive server like that, while > appearing not to do much of anything - but maybe that's not the right > way to see things. ? On 31.07.09 21:13, Waitman Gobble wrote: > i'm not sure that 3008 MB is a wise number, but I'll see how it runs. > after about a day it's using 20% of RAM. running the entire cache in RAM > would actually be better, a machine with 250GB of RAM would be supreme, > and 4GB is puny in this day and age, I think. But that's what's running > in my world at the moment. I hope you know what are you doing by configuring that big cache_mem... http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/SquidMemory > Removal policy: lru > LRU reference age: 1.25 days I recomment using heap removal policy, even if it's heap lru - it's still faster than pure LRU -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@xxxxxxxxxxx ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Saving Private Ryan... Private Ryan exists. Overwrite? (Y/N)
