RE: [squid-users] ufs/aufs/diskd question

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Whitley GS11 Cecil H [mailto:WhitleyCH@cherrypoint.usmc.mil]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 3:56 PM
> To: 'squid-users@squid-cache.org'
> Subject: [squid-users] ufs/aufs/diskd question
>
>
> Hi all,
> I am new to squid. We are running a mixed environment (m.s. proxy and
> squid) and are migrating to squid. In reading the
> documentation and faq, I
> still have a question. Which is better/faster/more reliable, aufs or
> diskd???
>

congrats. dumping ms proxy down the drain is the right decision :)

to your question:
diskd is faster, according to my benchmarks (done with polygraph).
you may also read http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/FAQ/FAQ-22.html

> hardware: dell poweredge 4400
> os: redhat 7.1
> Server is running the "out-of-the-box" enterprise smp kernel.
>
> squid 2.4.STABLE1
> squidGuard 1.1.4

i suggest upgrading to 2.4stable2. stable1 has some serious memory leaks.
see http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.4/ChangeLog.txt.
stable1 crashed 2-3 times a day at my site (50.000 req/h).
stable2 runs nearly perfect. it still leaks memory, but less than stable1.

>
> Cache is actually up and running in production. Concept
> proven, migration
> begins. That was using diskd. I am seeing many many posts
> here using aufs,
> am I missing out?
>

you definitely should run some benchmarks to get a performance baseline.
so you will get a feeling for the top performance of your squid and maybe
you find some performance bottlenecks.

ciao -ap

System Administration
VIRBUS AG
Fon +49(0)341-979-7424
Fax +49(0)341-979-7409
andreas.piesk@virbus.de
www.virbus.de
Received on Tue Sep 04 2001 - 08:15:48 MDT