On 03/09/2013 12:48 AM, jiluspo wrote: > Therefore squid SMP is not stable. Support for ufs caching is not related to stability IMO, but perhaps your definition of stable is different from mine. > if we need to store more than 32KB the > best way is to use multi-instance and peering... Or use the unofficial Large Rock branch. It all depends on individual circumstances and needs. There is no single Squid version that works well for everybody. > When would probably finish the rock for large content? The Large Rock branch on Launchpad is ready for testing. It will probably be submitted for Squid Project review in a few months. HTH, Alex. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 3:03 PM >> To: squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: squid3 SMP aufs storage/process >> >> On 03/08/2013 11:21 PM, jiluspo wrote: >> >>> If squid3 configured with cache_dir aufs per process would they >>> share to other process? >> >> No. Ufs-based store modules, including aufs, are currently not >> SMP-aware. If you use them in SMP Squid (without protecting them with >> SMP conditionals), your cache will get corrupted. >> >> SMP conditionals in squid.conf can be used to prevent corruption, but >> they also prevent sharing of cache_dirs among workers. >> >> Rock store and memory cache are SMP-aware, share cache among workers, >> and do not need SMP macros, but they have their own limitations (we are >> actively working on addressing most of them). >> >> >> Pick your poison, >> >> Alex. >> >> Email secured by Check Point
