RE: [squid-users] Memory Vs Disk cache

Yes and no........ I have compiled squid to run on mac OSX BSD which has
a 64 bit chip soon available. And has a 8 GB addressable memory.

Xeon are also capable of doing it.

Pentium 4 with hyper threading might be able to do it.
(not too sure here).

The cache_dir "null" is that good. I heard before that squid bombs out
when the cache is insufficient for the task at hand. Is that true only
when it is using disk cache.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Nordstrom [mailto:hno@squid-cache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 4:29 PM
To: Roger Joseph; squid-users@squid-cache.org
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Memory Vs Disk cache

On Wednesday 10 September 2003 19.03, Roger Joseph wrote:

> Why I asked is that since we know RAM access is way ahead. And 8 GB
> ram or 4GB ram can allocate maybe towards a ram cache (not ram drive).

What kind of CPU are you using?

It it is a 32 bit CPU then addressing more than 3GB memory in the same
process is not technically fasible and you would be better off using
a ram drive.

> 1. what is the max ram usage of squid.

Depends on how large processes your hardware architecture and kernel
allows.

> 2. Is there a way in the current squid version to increase the wait of

> memory cache objects then if object not found check siblings.

You can run Squid without a disk cache, only using memory cache. See
the "null" cache_dir type.

Regards
Henrik

-- 
Donations welcome if you consider my Free Squid support helpful.
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=hno%40squid-cache.org
If you need commercial Squid support or cost effective Squid or firewall
appliances please refer to MARA Systems AB, Sweden
http://www.marasystems.com/, info@marasystems.com