On the other hand - used as outbound caching proxies, for typical ISP users, 1024 may be too small. Former client of mine had it turned to --with-maxfd=8192 Also note - when compiling on RHEL 5.x (and some other systems) you need to have ulimit -n *of the configure and build environment* set to at least the --with-maxfd value as well. We used a wrapper on the configure which essentially did this: -- export 'CFLAGS=-g -O -march=opteron -DNUMTHREADS=120 -DBUILDID=SQUID3.x-CUSTOMER-DATE' echo "setting max open files hard/soft limits to 32k" ulimit -HSn 32768 printenv ./configure (long list of configure options read from a separate file) -- If you didn't do that, the actual maxfd limit it built with was less than the --with-maxfd -george On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Leonardo Rodrigues <leolistas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mariel Sebedio escreveu: >> >> Hi, I have a RHEL 5.4 with squid3.0STABLE19 and have a performance >> problems... >> >> My cache.log not report warning >> >> When I see in cachemgr.cgi I just have a 1024 File descriptors... >> > > if you're not getting the famous WARNING in your cache.log > > WARNING! Your cache is running out of filedescriptors > > then you really dont need to worry about 1024 FDs. That's now too much, > but that's pretty enough for having a good number of simultaneos clients. > > Filedescriptors problems (running low on them) could give you some > problems, but in any case you would see the warning on your logs. If you're > not seeing it, then problem is not filedescriptor related. And if that's not > filedescriptor related, raising it wont change anything. > > your performance problem is somewhere else ..... > > > > > -- > > > Atenciosamente / Sincerily, > Leonardo Rodrigues > Solutti Tecnologia > http://www.solutti.com.br > > Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email > gertrudes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > My SPAMTRAP, do not email it > > > > > -- -george william herbert george.herbert@xxxxxxxxx
