[squid-users] Re: Squid monitoring, access report shows upto 5 % to 7 % cache usage

>Erm. On fast or high traffic proxies Squid uses the disk I/O capacity to
the limits of the hardware. If you place 2 UFS based cache_dir on one
physical disk spindle with lots of small objects they will fight for I/O
resources with the result of dramatic reduction in both performance and
disk lifetime relative to the traffic speed. Rock and COSS cache types
avoid this by aggregating the small objects into large blocks which get
read/write all at once. <

Really that bad ?
As squid does not use raw disk-I/O for any cache type, OS/FS-specific
buffering/merging/delayed writes will always happen, before cache objects
are really written to disk. So, a-priori I would not see a serious
difference between ufs/aufs/rock/COSS on same spindle for the same object
size (besides some overhead for creation of FS-info for ufs/aufs). COSS is
out-of-favour anyway, because of being unstable, wright ?

--
View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/Squid-monitoring-access-report-shows-upto-5-to-7-cache-usage-tp4661301p4661436.html
Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.