Re: Process size..

I believe that the FAQ is wrong in this respect.

D

Veaceslav Revutchi wrote:
>
> Doeasn't the FAQ recommend setting cache_mem to be 1/3 of the phisycal RAM
> on the machine? I thought there was 1G of RAM on that machine. Then
> shouldn't the cache_mem be set to something like 300Mb?
>
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Scott Hess wrote:
>
> > Better to let the OS handle it. Two problems. One is that the OS might be
> > better tuned towards keeping disk blocks in memory than Squid is towards
> > keeping pages in memory. [Might not, of course, but the OS is _about_ this
> > type of thing, whereas Squid is not.]
> >
> > The second problem is the killer. You never, ever, ever, ever want Squid
> > to swap. Since Squid is a select()-based system, it means that if any
> > request requires a page to be swapped in, all requests will wait. With a
> > cache_mem of 8M, you're likely to repeatedly touch all of that 8M much more
> > frequently than with 500M. The longer a page goes between touches, the
> > more likely it is to be swapped out.
> >
> > Later,
> > scott
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <Tony_Melia@Dell.com>
> > To: <squid-users@ircache.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 8:01 AM
> > Subject: RE: Process size..
> >
> >
> > > Is there a disadvantage to having thsi value higher? The normal reaction
> > > is, if you have the extra RAM, use it, or is it better to leave it for
> > the
> > > OS to use as disk cache?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Tony Melia MCSE
> > > Dell Server Support Group
> > > Bray, Ireland.
> > >
> > >
> > > * +353 1 4772072
> > > * Tony_Melia@Dell.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:DJW@bts.co.uk]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 12:30 PM
> > > To: 'squid-users@ircache.net'
> > > Subject: RE: Process size..
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: Marc-Adrian Napoli [SMTP:marcadrian@cia.com.au]
> > > >
> > > > cache_mem 500 MB
> > > >
> > > The normal reccomendation is to leave this at the
> > > default 8MB; what's your reasoning in using such
> > > a large value?
> > >
> >
> >
Received on Wed Nov 10 1999 - 18:37:03 MST