>Erm. On fast or high traffic proxies Squid uses the disk I/O capacity to the limits of the hardware. If you place 2 UFS based cache_dir on one physical disk spindle with lots of small objects they will fight for I/O resources with the result of dramatic reduction in both performance and disk lifetime relative to the traffic speed. Rock and COSS cache types avoid this by aggregating the small objects into large blocks which get read/write all at once. < Really that bad ? As squid does not use raw disk-I/O for any cache type, OS/FS-specific buffering/merging/delayed writes will always happen, before cache objects are really written to disk. So, a-priori I would not see a serious difference between ufs/aufs/rock/COSS on same spindle for the same object size (besides some overhead for creation of FS-info for ufs/aufs). COSS is out-of-favour anyway, because of being unstable, wright ? -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/Squid-monitoring-access-report-shows-upto-5-to-7-cache-usage-tp4661301p4661436.html Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
