On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:44:32 +1300 Amos Jeffries wrote: > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:31:21 +0000, RW wrote: > > Years ago I read something about how memory cache performance > > degraded > > progressively with increasing object size, and that increasing > > maximum_object_size_in_memory substantially could actually degrade > > performance. Has this been fixed in both 3.x and 2.x? > > Individual object size problems is not a limit on total RAM size > used by Squid or its memory cache. You can allocate many GB of RAM > cache then only store a few million <1KB objects in it. > > Most of the the large object (up to 2GB) problems were solved in > 3.0. The remainder (>2GB objects) were solved in 3.1.15. That's not what I'm referring to. IIRC there were some tests that showed that UFS (with OS-level disk-caching) outperformed memory cache above a certain object size. I think the cut-off was well under 100k.
