RE: [squid-users] squid: Memory utilization higher than expected since moving from 3.3 to 3.4 and Vary: working

No SSL.

Sorry for the Graphs not available in openoffice...

Anyway: we will probably go forward with 3GB mem_cahce settings now and I can observe the "system for some more time" - assuming it stays stable at the predicted 7.5-8GB RSS...

Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 18. Juli 2014 16:41
> To: squid-users_at_squid-cache.org
> Cc: Martin Sperl
> Subject: Re: [squid-users] squid: Memory utilization higher than expected
> since moving from 3.3 to 3.4 and Vary: working
>
> On 07/18/2014 04:09 AM, Martin Sperl wrote:
>
> > So the memory foot-print stayed fairly stable at around 10GB for
> > about 2.5 month (or at least a long portion of that time)
>
> OK, no leak then.
>
> As you said, the gradually increasing overhead per cache entry that you
> have reported earlier does not quite match the "stable footprint" claim
> you are making above, so something still does not add up, and I really
> hesitate offering any more theories based on shaky input data.
>
> Does your Squid use SSL encryption/decryption?
>
>
> > I have posted the raw data as an excel sheet including graphs to the
> > ticket: http://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4084
>
> Thank you for sharing the data. Just FYI: My Libreoffice on Ubuntu
> cannot display those graphs (but others can probably view them on
> Windows, and it is probably possible to reconstruct them from raw data
> as well).
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex.


This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp
Received on Fri Jul 18 2014 - 15:20:46 MDT