Re: 1.1.9 <--> NOVM 1.1.9?

At 01:16 PM 23/04/97 +0200, Oskar Pearson wrote:
>> Can anyone comment on performance differences ? Is NOVM as fast as
>> "VM" if using it for a background cache (i.e. no direct clients ?)
>There are no real tests that I know of. We could try do a test between
>multiple servers on a clean ethernet with Webstone. It's most likely to
>give us accurate results (I don't know of any other such systems):
>http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE/WebStone/
>http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE/WebStone/FAQ-webstone.html

Hmmmm - I've been using NOVM for a while now, switching back to normal I
find that NOVM is faster in my case. However since we're not using any
vitual memory squid write and reads directly to the hard disk which means
it uses more filedescriptors, so I had to increase mine to 1024 from the
default 256 of Linux.

I think NOVM is a great idea and an alternative to people that don't want
to go out and buy heaps of ram for squid to run. I run my NOVM cache on a
dedicated Pentium with 32meg ram - works well, were as I'd say I'd need
more ram on a normal version.

Regards

--
Karl Ferguson
Tower Networking Pty Ltd   Tel: +61-8-9456-0000     karl@tower.net.au
t/a STAR Online Services   Fax: +61-8-9455-2776     karl@debian.org