Amos Jeffries-2 wrote > On 19/02/2014 12:12 a.m., Dr.x wrote: >> im doubting , >> without smp with same traffic and same users i can save 40Mbps >> >> but in smp with combination of aufs with rock (32KB max obj size) >> i can only save 20Mbps >> >> >> im wondering does large rock will heal me ? >> > > How many Squid processes are you currently needing to service those > users traffic? > > If the number is >1 then the answer is probably yes. > > * Each worker should have same HIT ratio from AUFS cached objects. Then > the shared Rock storage should increase HIT ratio some for workers which > would not normally see those small objects. > > >> or return to aufs and wait untill squid relase version that has bigger >> object size ? >> >> bw saving is a big issue to me and must be done !!! >> > > Your choice there. > > FYI: The upcoming Squid series with large-rock support is not planned to > be packaged for another 3-6 months. > > HTH > Amos hi amos , i have about 900 req/sec , and i think i need 4 or 5 workers at maximum i have 24 cores , from the old squid that was saving 40-45M i found mean object size Mean Object Size: *142.30 KB* i found that 142KB is close to 100KB , i mean if i used large rock , will it enhace byte ratio !!! do agree with me ? now regardsing to use aufs with rock now i have 5 aufs hardsisk each has conf file and aufs dir and max object size now , wt is the best implementation of smp ? should i do if statements and map each worker with aufs process ? im not sure which is best sure u can give me advice to start , also , can i use large rock now ? regards ----- Dr.x -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/What-are-recommended-settings-for-optimal-sharing-of-cache-between-SMP-workers-tp4664909p4664921.html Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
