RE: [squid-users] capacity of squid

Yeah ! I have test both of them and the ReiserFS is much better for me . I
have 4 megabit Send/Recieve line and my Cache HIT Rate is increase after
changing my file system to reiserFS from ext2 .

--
Regards
    ============================================================
   /  Seyyed Hamid Reza    /        WINDOWS FOR NOW  !!            /
  /  Hashemi Golpayegani  /  Linux for future , FreeBSD for ever  /
 /    Morva System Co.   / ------------------------------------- /
/  Network Administrator/ hamid@morva.net   ,   ICQ# : 42209876 /
===========================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Lang [mailto:aalang@rutgersinsurance.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 11:07 PM
Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
Subject: Re: [squid-users] capacity of squid
Yeah, just read an interesting article about it... it would seem it would
help to make Squid really hum.
Has anyone on the list ran Squid with and without ReiserFS and noticed any
magnitude of difference?
Adam Lang
Systems Engineer
Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
http://www.rutgersinsurance.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@squid-cache.org>
To: "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>
Cc: <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] capacity of squid
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001, Adam Lang wrote:
> > Why reiserFS?
>
> Reiserfs deals with lots-of-small-files and large-directories better
> than traditional UFS based filesystems.
>
>
>
> Adrian