2011/1/8 Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 08/01/11 06:22, Drunkard Zhang wrote: >> >> 2011/1/8 Mohsen Saeedi<mohsen.saeedi@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> I know about coss. it's great. but i have squid 3.1 and i think it's >>> unstable in 3.x version. that's correct? >> >> I need "null" for memory-only cache, which is not provided in squid-3, >> so it's all squid-2.x in product environment. > > The memory cache has been made default in Squid-3. Removing all cache_dir > entries moves squid-3 to the same operational state as squid-2 with a fake > "null" directory. My fault :-). Thanks. >> Of cource, we tested every squid-3.x, many bugs and poor performance >> to squid-2.x. We tested squid-2.HEAD too, it's worth to try. > > Which 3.x? We just had reports that 3.1.10 is faster than 2.7.STABLE9 (in > RPS). Prior to that it has been slower. If there are any bugs you are aware > of that are not already reported or fixed in bugzilla please report. Also, > please add your additional knowledge to the bugzilla entries to aid a faster > fix. > >> >> aufs acts very bad under high presure, with 8GB memory and least SATA >> aufs space per instance, it's still too hard to over 180Mbps. >> >> I haven't try diskd yet. >> > > Thanks for this. >
