Il 10/04/2013 13:59, Mr Dash Four ha scritto:
Marcello Romani wrote:
Il 09/04/2013 19:33, Mr Dash Four ha scritto:
> [snip]
if the maximum_object_size_in_memory is reduced,
then I suppose squid's memory footprint will have to go down too, which
makes the cache_mem option a bit useless.
I think will just store more objects in RAM.
I am sorry, but I don't understand that logic.
If I set cache_mem (which is supposed to be the limit of ram squid is
going to use for caching), then the maximum_object_size_in_memory should
be irrelevant. The *number* of objects to be placed in memory should
depend on cache_mem, not the other way around.
You're wrong.
Each object that squid puts into cache_mem can have a different size.
Thus the number of objects stored in cache_mem will vary over time
depending on the traffic and selection algorithms.
What currently seems to happen is that cache_mem is completely ignored
and squid is trying to shove up as many objects into my ram as possible,
to the point where nothing else on that machine is able to function
nominally. This is like putting cart in front of the horse - ridiculous!
As stated elsewhere, previous versions of squid had memory leaks. That
doesn't mean squid is _designed_ to put as many objects in ram as possible.
Also, the cache_mem value must not be confused with a hard limit on
total squid memory usage (which AFAIK cannot be set). For example
there's also the memory used to manage the on-disk cache (10MB per GB
IIRC - google it for a reliable answer).
--
Marcello Romani
