RE: [squid-users] Squid Caches

http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200008/0147.html

Should cover the perf reasons. (in summary raid 5 has read perf benfits
only, and can affect squid (depending on your hit rate vs object commit
rate of course).

See the raid branch at sourcerforge for auto-recovery after cache_dir
failures.

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Diggins [mailto:diggins@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca]
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 11:59 AM
> To: squid-users@squid-cache.org
> Subject: Re: [squid-users] Squid Caches
>
>
>
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> My initial thought was that a stripe set was the obvious
> choice for the
> squid cache. It seems that isn't the case. Why wouldn't Squid
> benefit from
> the stripe set?
>
> Also, if I have, say, two cache dirs spread over two physical
> disks and
> one drive fails, will squid continue to run with one cache dir out of
> commission?
>
> -Mike
>
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
> > There is no big performance difference between the two
> configurations,
> > but having them separate is probably easier to maintain.
> >
> > Note: If you have disksuite then there is a performance gain in
> > assigning one of the drives as DiskSuite log drive for the other
> > drives.. (the log drive should not be used for cache, but
> it might be
> > used for OS or other less I/O intensive purposes)
> >
> > --
> > Henrik Nordstrom
> > Squid Hacker
> >
> > Mike Diggins wrote:
> > >
> > > What's the better option for a squid cache; multiple
> cache directories
> > > over two or more separate disks or a single cache on a
> striped disk set
> > > (say two or three disks)? This would be on a Sun system
> running solaris 8
> > > and squid 2.4 stable1.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Sun Apr 29 2001 - 00:50:51 MDT