hi amos , =============================================== Question 1 : about aufs dir , about smp , you say that it dont work with smp but my question is more accurate , i c that it dont share workers , but it works if we assign specific process to specific cache dir . in my opinion we could solve our problem of cpu load partially ??!!! because without smp , all cache dir aufs or not aufs , were sharing the same process , and this process was not getting beneift of all cores ""uptill now this is my understanding " again , my question is , we should not say that auf dir dont work with smp completely , but to be accurate we can say that aufs dont work with shared workers , but we can get benefit of smp to load cpu cores and set each core to instance aufs dir and as a result we solved our cpu load partially , i just want to understand this issue and with to correct me about the info i posted here , =============================================== Amos Jeffries-2 wrote > PS: if you want to experiment, you could try given the frontend and > backend config two slightly different cache_dir lines. So the frontend > has a "read-only" flag but otherwise identical settings. In theory that > would make the frontend able to HIT on the rock cache, but only the > backends able to store things there. > > Amos not understanding yet , why add to front end a cahe dir ??? did u mean to put cache dir into process squid # 1?? rergards ----- Dr.x -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/does-rock-type-deny-being-dedicated-to-specific-process-tp4662919p4662997.html Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
