Marcello Romani wrote:
> Il 09/04/2013 19:33, Mr Dash Four ha scritto:
> > [snip]
>> if the maximum_object_size_in_memory is reduced,
>> then I suppose squid's memory footprint will have to go down too, which
>> makes the cache_mem option a bit useless.
>
> I think will just store more objects in RAM.
I am sorry, but I don't understand that logic.
If I set cache_mem (which is supposed to be the limit of ram squid is
going to use for caching), then the maximum_object_size_in_memory should
be irrelevant. The *number* of objects to be placed in memory should
depend on cache_mem, not the other way around.
What currently seems to happen is that cache_mem is completely ignored
and squid is trying to shove up as many objects into my ram as possible,
to the point where nothing else on that machine is able to function
nominally. This is like putting cart in front of the horse - ridiculous!
Received on Wed Apr 10 2013 - 11:59:29 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Apr 10 2013 - 12:00:05 MDT