Re: TCP_SWAPFAIL_MISS and asyncufs/2.3

Dear Sir,

                Please let me know is it Squid-2.3.Stable4, and if it is
from where you get it as on squid web site its still squid-2.3.stable2.
Moreover Its not just Solaris Platform Problem, I have face the same
situations and errors on Linux RedHat.

Ahsan Saleem Khan
Sr.System Admin
OneNet (InterNet Division)
Sun Communications Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.one.net.pk

On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Chris Miles wrote:

> We have just moved to squid-2.3.STABLE2 with "--enable-snmp
> --enable-async-io" re-using a squid-2.3.STABLE4 spool, cache_dirs
> configured as asyncufs, and have seen our object and byte hit rates drop to
> the floor. With 2.2 we had about 25-35% byte hit rates, but now it is
> around 0-1% and cache.log is showing a lot of
>
> 2000/04/05 02:32:45| WARNING: swapin MD5 mismatch
> 2000/04/05 02:32:45| storeClientReadHeader: URL mismatch
> 2000/04/05 02:32:45| {http://www.asianmail.org/dt/dir.gif} != {http://209.132.206.17/vvtour/images/tours1_r4_c2.gif}
>
> along with a LOT of TCP_SWAPFAIL_MISS entries in access.log.
>
> Presuming object incompatibilities between the two versions I newfs'd and
> re-built new empty cache dirs (swap.state lives on these disks also, so
> they are cleared), and started 2.3 back up. We are still seeing a
> lot of TCP_SWAPFAIL_MISS (mixed between /200 and /304 mainly) in
> access.log - roughly 3 times as many entries as TCP_HITs.
>
> Q's:
> 1. TCP_SWAPFAIL_MISS means squid thought it had the object but cannot
> retrieve it from the cache. Why would this be happening (especially on a
> fresh cache)?
>
> 2. Are 2.2 and 2.3 cache spools supposed to be compatible? (and does
> asyncufs make any difference to compability?)
>
> 3. is asyncio stable enough under 2.3? squid performance appears to be
> much improved with it, only problem is the hit rates.
>
> note: OS is Solaris 2.6, running on UltraSparc.
>
> CM
>
> --
> Chris Miles - System Architect - connect.com.au
> cmiles@connect.com.au Australia
> http://www.psychofx.com/chris/ +613 9251 3610
>
Received on Tue Apr 04 2000 - 22:42:07 MDT