Resending this after the last attempt went into the mail server black hole:
I decided I’m not confident enough in 3.5.HEAD, after last time, to go back into production with it. Going to to do some more local testing first.
That being said, I now have 3.4.12 in production with optimisations disabled and it seems to be doing fine performance and stability-wise. I only managed to capture one crash with optimisations disabled, so far, but it seemed to have some memory-related corruption, unfortunately.
Updates to come over the next few days.
On 23 March 2015 at 16:59, Dan Charlesworth <dan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Amos
I decided I’m not confident enough in 3.5.HEAD, after last time, to go back into production with it. Going to to do some more local testing first.
That being said, I now have 3.4.12 in production with optimisations disabled and it seems to be doing fine performance and stability-wise. I only managed to capture one crash with optimisations disabled, so far, but it seemed to have some memory-related corruption, unfortunately.
More to come tomorrow :-)
> On 20 Mar 2015, at 6:37 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 20/03/2015 8:34 p.m., Dan Charlesworth wrote:
>> Thanks Amos.
>>
>>
>> I'll put together a build with the upcoming snapshot on Monday, might even try disabling optimization for it too.
>
> Please do. If you're only getting 40 RPS out of the proxy during the
> test its hard to see how not optimizing the code could be any worse, and
> it will help identifiying some traffic details.
>
> Amos
>
_______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
