Re: Is squid unable to handle the load?

On Wed, 27 May 1998, Markus Storm wrote:

> Morten Guldager Jensen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 May 1998, Markus Storm wrote:
> >
> > > Try adding more disks.
> >
> > Will it help? I don't think so.
> >
> > As far as I know, Squid does sequential disk IO.
> >
> > So when Squid decides to read a file, everything else has to wait. Then
> > you are waisting the additional disk IO bandwidt comming from the
> > multiple disk drives.
>
> First, don't run anything else on the disks you're putting the cache
> data on.

I have 3 drives for the system: system disk, swap disk, and squid home
which includes logfiles. Then I have 6 2GB UltraWide drives for cache
data.

> Second, yes, squid 1.1 does sequential I/O. Squid 1.2 does it asynchronously.
> It's not 100% stable yet but one might nevertheless consider running it (we
> do).

1.2 is not an option! I can't take any chances!

> Third, in case 1.2 is not an option, striping spreads the load across several
> disks which greatly decreases the average access time, thus allowing more
> (sequential) accesses per second.

Rigth now the 6 data disks have a filesystem each. I did it that way so
the OS, AIX-4.1, was able to run an eventual fsck in parallel.

Do you think I will get better performance if I stripe the 6 drives in a
raid0 system?

/Morten %-)
---------------------------------------------------------------
 Morten.Guldager.Jensen@uni-c.dk UNI-C Denmark. +45 3587 8935
---------------------------------------------------------------
  It's spring and you know what that means... garden season!
Received on Wed May 27 1998 - 11:01:44 MDT