On 07/18/2014 04:09 AM, Martin Sperl wrote: > So the memory foot-print stayed fairly stable at around 10GB for > about 2.5 month (or at least a long portion of that time) OK, no leak then. As you said, the gradually increasing overhead per cache entry that you have reported earlier does not quite match the "stable footprint" claim you are making above, so something still does not add up, and I really hesitate offering any more theories based on shaky input data. Does your Squid use SSL encryption/decryption? > I have posted the raw data as an excel sheet including graphs to the > ticket: http://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4084 Thank you for sharing the data. Just FYI: My Libreoffice on Ubuntu cannot display those graphs (but others can probably view them on Windows, and it is probably possible to reconstruct them from raw data as well). Cheers, Alex.
