>I've read (for Linux at least) aufs is superior to diskd,< I have my doubts. First of all, it might depend upon the version of Squid you want to use. I use 2.7, and, looking at the source code for aufs, ony reads are async. Having some discussion with Amos already regarding this issue, he stated, that async writes were not enabled because being "unstable". Might be different in other versions, though, but, to be shure, it needs checking the source code, because it is a conditional compile (ref.: store_asyncufs.h). And, in case only reads are async, then it needs further verification, whether diskd or aufs should be faster. Because according to my first glance at the code for diskd, diskd does async writes by default. Most likely, diskd has more overhead. But, in case of low hit rate for the cache, I suspects, the performance gains because of async writes might put diskd into favour. Actually, I am checking this issue myself for my own stressed squid, running already in production (LINUX, too). In case, the "writing" considers aufs to be generally faster than diskd, it looks like, it is ignoring the risk of "unstable" write ops. -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/Metrics-to-calculate-best-values-for-cache-mem-and-cache-dir-tp4508859p4509979.html Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
