Re: [squid-users] issue with one of joe coopers modifcations

just so you the machine
its 512mb ram, linux 2.2.14-50
pentium II 333
ultra 160 30 gig scsi drive
handles about 500 to 1000 modem users and 6 lan users

cache size is 26 gig.
30x10=300

so that means that i have 212 meg left or close to that figure, now i know
linux will use up a bit of memory
but surely i wouldn't need more than 512 meg of ram???
Thanks
Greg

i noticed you use 2.2.16, is 2.2.16 more stable and better than 2.2.14-5.0??
Thanks

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Cooper" <joe@swelltech.com>
To: "Greg" <squid@australis.com.au>
Cc: "squid" <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] issue with one of joe coopers modifcations

> Hi Greg,
>
> Using my instructions has nothing to do with having too little memory in
> your machine to handle a cache that size. 73 L1 directories??? Are you
> really using a cache_dir that large?
>
> You are simply filling up your RAM with an in-core index of the cache
> contents. This is normal behavior--Squid keeps a record of every object
> in the store in memory. If your store is gigantic (as yours clearly
> is), and your memory is not gigantic to match, you will run out of
> memory. There is no leak, and there is no flaw in the malloc used by
> default in Red Hat 6.2.
>
> Lower your cache_dirs to something sensible (1GB for every 10MB of RAM
> is a safe number for a standard Squid compile--a little more RAM is
> needed for an async i/o compile). This too, is covered in my
> documentation for tuning Squid on Linux.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Greg wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > I changed the default first level cache directory from default 14 and
> > used his formula, i got 73, anyway getting to the point, basically what
> > happens after about 3 to 4 weeks it uses up all the memory and hits swap
> > space, i have tried, rebooting, no difference, and using the kill
> > command, (had httpd and cron running, thought they were bad, so i killed

> > them) its still made no difference, so i am now using the alernative
> > malloc (configure --enable-dlmalloc)
> >
> > and seeing if there is any other difference, the only thing i can't do
> > is make a custom kernel (i think there are compiler problems in my
> > version of redhat 6.2)
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Greg
> --
> Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
> Affordable Web Caching Proxy Appliances
> http://www.swelltech.com
>
Received on Fri Mar 23 2001 - 15:43:06 MST