Re: [squid-users] Optimal cache_dir L2 value for ReiserFS?

From: Joe Cooper <joe@dont-contact.us>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:27:48 -0500

wojtek@3miasto.net wrote:

>>Not in my experience (and I don't think anyone has done more benchmarks
>>of ReiserFS and Squid than I).
>>
> look at reiserfs page. there was some benchmarks at least year ago.

Sorry, those benchmarks are wrong. After my tests, the Reiser guys went
back and performed the tests under the same conditions as mine, and had
the same results I did.

Squid performs better with larger directories /only/ in a non-async i/o
compile. When made async i/o Squid performs much much much worse with
extremely large ReiserFS directories.

If you would search the archives of the ReiserFS mailing lists, as I
suggested, you would see an extensive discussion of this stuff. Lots of
interesting stuff there...well worth looking into, if you have an
interest in ReiserFS and Squid.
                                   --
                      Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
                  Affordable Web Caching Proxy Appliances
                         http://www.swelltech.com
Received on Wed May 23 2001 - 12:28:58 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:00:16 MST