Re: [SQU] current CVS ... diskd config args changed ...

Joe Cooper wrote:
>
> I benchmarked them a couple of months back. aufs was, then, about 10%
> faster than diskd on a dual disk system.
>
> I have not yet benchmarked a recent 2.4PRE-STABLE Squid, however.
>

Hello,

I have read the following URL following your postings in this thread,
which have sparked my interest:

http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200101/0798.html

Is it inferred with 2.4-PRE-STABLE that we can once again use ASYNCIO on
Linux GLIBC2.x systems? Would it be acceptable to use ASYNCIO and aufs
on such a system? With PTHREADS?

To be honest, I have tried 2.4PRE-STABLE with a Linux system, PIII
800Mhz, 2x15GB partitions, 768MB RAM and a 80M/sec SCSI card and the
system's load average under 2.3STABLE4 is about 0.80 at 2000 req/min,
and using diskd with 2.4PRE-STABLE on the same system, my load average
would hover between 2.5 to 3.0, so I obviously reverted back to
2.3STABLE4. My system's library is GLIBC 2.1.3.

Also, there is a bug mentioned in the bug watcher about delay pools.
What is the status on this? Is the patch mentioned functional? I am
referring to http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=84 .

Thanks,

Chris

--
To unsubscribe, see http://www.squid-cache.org/mailing-lists.html