Hi Ralf, when you have new machines to play with, first of all I would try to optimize a solid conf. Just to have a reference system, the potentially better ones can be compared to. As I wrote already, selection and tuning of the FS to be used for the cache-disk(s) is quite some research, but worth to be done, at least for my special requirements. For me it also was some learning phase regarding the tools, LINUX has available to measure I/Os, response times etc. Or to dig into the descriptions of functionalities of ext2, ext3, ext4 :-) Quite a foggy functionality, just the start of try-and-error mods to the various options. For example, with respect of caching performance, it is not a good idea to use the elaborate journaling options of ext4, which might even be default. At least not, in case you have (dedicated) caching disk(s), where "some" data-loss in worst case is acceptable. May be, just to use 50% of the available disk space for caching of such an optimized, solid config. And then, to use the second 50% for an identical config, with the only difference of using Rock. -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/Squid-3-2-6-hot-object-cache-tp4658133p4658178.html Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
