On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Marshall wrote:
> I guess you are saying go heavy on RAM no matter what, and buy more disks
> if possible? Is there any perf hit to having a cache partition on the
> same disk as OS and swap?
cache_mem is important, since you are not refreshing your cache a lot.
Your disk I/O should be low.
> I actually prefer Solaris, but it seems like most people are running
> FreeBSD or Linux, and of those 2 I prefer FreeBSD. I like Solaris for
> multi-tasking and NFS (and multi-cpu), but FreeBSD will probably kick its
> butt at single-tasking with a single cpu. Any arguments for Squid/Solaris
> out there?
Actually I'm using OpenBSD and no issues. Forget Solaris...
> Even allowing for growth I can't see ever having more than 50,000 objects
> (average 40KB, ~2GB total) in the cache. Does this make any difference?
> Based on what I read into this so far, I would probably stick with the
> 2x18GB 10K with 5.2 seek time, but go woth 2GB RAM, instead of going to
> 15K 3.9 seek time disks and leaving the RAM at 1GB. I guess I could
> always add RAM later, but it is damn cheap right now. It sounds like
> processor is not really an issue.
> Another scenario might be to add a third disk and keep the RAM at 1GB. But
> I guess it seems ridiculous to have 54GB of storage for 2 to 3 GB of
> cacheable objects. Unless seek time is really the end of the road. What
> do you think?
I just got a cheap IDE drive and lots of RAM, just follow Brian advices.
Go with IDE disks and more RAM.
> I am hoping to get more comments on this before I move forward. Anyone?
Not me.
--Received on Thu Jun 27 2002 - 18:23:50 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:08:51 MST