Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?

    Tim,

    Not really! I can add as much cache_dir as I want on squid.conf:

cache_dir diskd /usr/local/squid/var/cacheb 38000 16 256 Q1=70 Q2=80
cache_dir diskd /usr/local/squid/var/cachec 38000 16 256 Q1=70 Q2=80
cache_dir diskd /usr/local/squid/var/cached 38000 16 256 Q1=70 Q2=80
cache_dir diskd /usr/local/squid/var/cachee 38000 16 256 Q1=70 Q2=80

    Got it? ;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: <trainier@kalsec.com>
To: <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?

> Oh. You're running 4 seperate caches?
> Yeah, I couldn't see why anyone would want to RAID squid cache. :-)
>
> Tim Rainier
> Information Services, Kalsec, INC
> trainier@kalsec.com
>
>
>
> "Rodrigo A B Freire" <zazgyn@terra.com.br>
> 10/12/2005 01:24 PM
>
> To
> <trainier@kalsec.com>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello, Tim!
>
> The disks ae completely stand-alone. No volume manager, no RAID:
>
> #/dev/sdb /usr/local/squid/var/cacheb reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0
> #/dev/sdc /usr/local/squid/var/cachec reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0
> #/dev/sdd /usr/local/squid/var/cached reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0
> #/dev/sde /usr/local/squid/var/cachee reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0
>
> I've read somewere that Squid is a worst-case scenario for RAIDs, due
> to
> the atomicity of the files and they're sparsed.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rodrigo.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <trainier@kalsec.com>
> To: <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
>
>
>> Oh yeah. I definitely see the advantages.
>>
>> The fact is, we're small enough that it hasn't sorely affected us much
> at
>> all. My access log for squid grows to about 4-10 GB in a week.
>> I made it adimently clear that I would only retain 1 weeks worth of
> access
>> logging information.
>>
>> When it comes down to it, I would've never moved this box into
> production
>> if we ran anything else off from it. It's dedicated to caching and
>> blocking content (squidguard).
>> I have had very few complaints on performance (with the exception of the
>> period when we were testing with authentication routines).
>>
>> On a side-note. Your 4x33 are set up as RAID or LVM?
>>
>> Tim Rainier
>> Information Services, Kalsec, INC
>> trainier@kalsec.com
>>
>>
>>
>> "Rodrigo A B Freire" <zazgyn@terra.com.br>
>> 10/11/2005 10:52 PM
>>
>> To
>> <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
>> cc
>>
>> Subject
>> Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In my cache server, every mount is set "noatime". Since the server is
>> dedicated to the web caching, I don't need the "last time someone
> accessed
>> a
>> given file".
>>
>> BTW, FYI.. On my cache.log startup:
>>
>> Max Swap size: 132592000 KB
>>
>> 4x33 GB UW-SCSI2 drives. I fills almost my entire RAM. My cache_mem is
> set
>>
>> to only 50 MBs, since the object table goes quite large into the memory.
>> But, why mind? The disk access is fast enough (avg. 9 ms to access
> cached
>> objects).
>>
>> The OS lies in a 9-GB disk drive. Logs rotated and compressed
>> (access.log and cache.log, don't log store.log) daily. Monthly, FTPed to
>> another server, backup and remove the old ones from cache machine
>> [access.log may reach 1 GB/day].
>>
>> My cache occupies entire hard disks, with no partitions [mkfs.reiser4
>> (yeah!) -f /dev/sdb, sdc, sdd, sde].
>>
>> The advantage? Well, If I want to zero the cache swap, I just stop
>> squid, umount the partition, kick a mkfs and re-mount drives. Elapsed
>> time?
>> 10 seconds, I say.
>> rm -f /usr/local/squid/var/cachexx ?
>> Damn, it may take up to 20 minutes (with a 27 GB cache_dir).
>>
>> Another thing I have into account is the fact of the intense I/O in
>> the
>> cache dir. Definitely, I don't feel comfy about all this I/O in my OS
> main
>>
>> disk. And, placing in different disks, the log writting isn't
> concomitant
>> with a eventual disk op cache-related.
>>
>> A power loss might led to a long fsck (the cache mounts aren't
>> FSCKed),
>> which results to long time bringing the machine back up and lots of
> users
>> whining (altough we use WPAD with quite good results when directing the
>> traffic to another server in case of failure).
>>
>> My 2 cents: I would consider seriously creating a separate partition
>> to
>> the cache (if a second or more disks isn't an option). Both of them with
>> "noatime" ;-)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rodrigo.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <trainier@kalsec.com>
>> To: <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
>>
>>
>>> First off, there's no possible way my cache would "fill" the '/'
>>> partition. There's a cache size directive in squid that's designed to
>>> limit the amount of disk space usage.
>>> Not to mention the fact that I have a utility script that runs every 15
>>> minutes, which pages me if partitions are >= to 90% their capacity. I
>>> mean, honestly, who would run a 146GB cache?
>>>
>>> Second off, it's a performance thing. The fact is, the box and the web
>>> run quite fine. This was a test server that was thrown into production
>>> because it works.
>>> My plans to upgrade the device are set, I'm just trying to find the
> time
>>> to do them. :-)
>>>
>>> Thirdly, can someone PLEASE answer my question about setting "/" to
>>> 'noatime', as opposed to avoiding it by telling me how and why what I'm
>>> doing
>>> is stupid?
>>>
>>> Once again, are there pitfalls to having '/' set to 'noatime'?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Tim Rainier
>>> Information Services, Kalsec, INC
>>> trainier@kalsec.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Joost de Heer" <sanguis@xs4all.nl>
>>> 10/11/2005 05:07 PM
>>> Please respond to
>>> sanguis@xs4all.nl
>>>
>>>
>>> To
>>> trainier@kalsec.com
>>> cc
>>> squid-users@squid-cache.org
>>> Subject
>>> Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> trainier@kalsec.com said:
>>>> What if the squid cache is stored on the "/" partition?
>>>
>>> That's a bad idea. Your cache could potentially fill up the root
>>> partition.
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't that be a hideous mistake to set "/" to 'noatime' ?
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be a hideous mistake to put the cache on the same partition
>> as
>>> "/"?
>>>
>>> Joost
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Oct 12 2005 - 15:21:45 MDT