On 28/06/24 19:44, Alex Rousskov wrote:
I do not know the answer to your question. SMP performance penalties are
often smaller for smaller cache sizes, but cache size is not the only
performance-affecting locking-sensitive parameter, so YMMV.
I was able to compile after commenting the specific line of code. Squid
workers start and I am able to bind them to specific CPU cores.
I will do some extensive testing in the next few days in SMP and non-SMP
mode before rolling the new version out in the field.
Just to avoid a misunderstanding: Other than commenting out the
assertion line, no code removal is suggested in my bulleted list quoted
above. The first bullet is a speculative "remove the assertion and see
what happens" experiment. The second bullet is about reviewing existing
code (without code modifications) to validate the need for that
assertion. That audit/validation is required to remove the assertion
from official Squid sources. That need (and that decision) do not depend
on cache sizes and other deployment specifics.
I have already acted on first of the bulleted suggestion items list :)
For the next two, I can run tests on these devices under various
workloads and scenarios, if that helps in validation and further
decision making.
Thanks again for your help.
Regards,
Nishant
_______________________________________________
squid-users mailing list
squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
