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

aufs has a higher level of parallellism than diskd, and can be tuned for
more if wanted (defaults to up to 16 parallell I/O operations per
cache_dir). In theory it should also have less CPU per IO overhead than
diskd, but there are much room for improvement there once the Squid core
is more suited for asyncronous stores..

So for diskd your reasoning makes sense, but not for aufs.

--
Henrik Nordstrom
Squid hacker
Phil Pierotti wrote:
> 
> So then I'm going to have to ask the obvious question.
> 
> I have a Dual PIII/500 with 1GB of RAM and 4 x 18G drives (7200rpm).
> 
> Running RH7/2.4.2 , ReiserFS (notail,noatime) and Squid 2.4 with DiskD.
> 
> Given that for me adding RAM is entirely doable, but faster CPUs or
> Faster/More drives is not, would I gain anything by seperating each drive
> into 2 or maybe 3 seperate cache_dir statements, rather than just one per
> drive?
> 
> ie on the theory that multiple diskd per drive would mean that IO requests
> could possibly queue up per disk at the OS/Filesystem level and any OS level
> elevator sorting (or something) might maybe optimize disk IO performance
> some.
--
To unsubscribe, see http://www.squid-cache.org/mailing-lists.html