RE: [squid-users] Squid performance issue [again]

Thanks.

So does it means that the number of partition as well as the total size per
harddisk does not matter?

As long as the harddisk has multiple spindles, performance would be
equivalent?

Regards
Liz

>From: "Elsen Marc" <elsen@imec.be>
>To: "Lizzy Dizzy" <lizzy_99@hotmail.com>,<squid-users@squid-cache.org>
>Subject: RE: [squid-users] Squid performance issue [again]
>Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:23:52 +0200
>
>
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I understand that the size of the physical RAM has to be
> > proportional to the
> > total harddisk cache size. Supposing I have
> >
> > unlimited physical RAM,
> >
> >
> > 1) What is the recommended size of 1 physical harddisk for
> > each server (each
> > server can have sda, sdb etc...). The reason I
> >
> > am asking this is that I am concern that the bigger a disk
> > is, the longer
> > squid needs to get an object out of it.
> >
> > I am currently using a U320 SCSI disk of 10KRPM, size 73GB.
> > It is being
> > partitioned into 4 smaller partition of 17GB each.
> >
> > Performace is within expectation, but I am wondering if
> > reparttioning it
> > into smaller sizes would give better yield. On the
> >
> > other hand, the disk has a fixed number of head, so would it
> > even help?
> >
> > 2) In term of performance only, is a 100GB harddisk better
> > (partitioned into
> > 5 20GB partitioned) or 5 20GB harddisks better.
> >
> The multiple spindles solution would be better, as SQUID's performance
> highly depends on (reduced) seek time(s).
>
> M.

_________________________________________________________________
Take a break! Find destinations on MSN Travel. http://www.msn.com.sg/travel/
Received on Mon May 17 2004 - 02:47:42 MDT