Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:32:02 -0300 (BRT)
Adrian Chadd disse na ultima mensagem:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007, Michel Santos wrote:
>
>> > the bug, I am curious what others have been using or prefer as their
>> > alternative to diskd and why?
>>
>> diskd for sure is the fastest specially on SMP machines but there are
>> not
>> so much people sharing my opinion ...
>
> Just supply real-world numbers showing which is faster.
>
oook, let's agree first what fast means fast here since fast can be
relative depending on who sense the speed and what he is used to right ...
when I say speed I mean especially response time which then often depends
on local network and wan connection latency and server quality (hardware)
so then it's kind of hard to measure that all together. Like you know
well, often squid might be blamed for performance problems and in the end
it was something else.
But then perhaps a req/hit relationsship satisfies your curiousity? Then
have a look at the image attached which shows a average server I have.
> Remember - the overlap between the people doing the development and the
> people saving/making money using Squid is almost 0..
>
hum, may be may be not. Problem here is that most people have one or two
servers (if) and eventually do not have enough real life data to reflect
the hundreds of different situations we find in the wild. Also a corporate
or home frontend proxy running nat and controlling internet access
probably is not exactly a performance relative comparism since such a
machine never comes to it's limits nor has much to do in means of cache
functions
"people saving/making" money I guess are for you those who sell their
consultant services but for me would be those who use squid for spending
less or getting more out of their internet connection - or shorter -
interested in it's cache funcionality only
so you see a bunch of different purposes and basics which are not easy to
compare in general statements as you are used to
technically speaking we do have 4 fs as choice and to not forget, this
thread is dedicated to freebsd and I have no idea about linux and less
about windows
so then first we discard ufs as good, stable and standard and we discard
coss because of it's kind of excessive startup time of 1-3 hours ... ;)
then we have left aufs and diskd for performance geeks
aufs is good but not good enough it starts choking same way as ufs under
load and this happens on the exat same hardware as the diskd I tell you
next. IMO this is happening because of missing real SMP support. may be
this is wrong and other things are making the difference here but don't
forget on freebsd our choice is ufs2 and eventually this does not work
exactly as extN on Linux
diskd probably is not very much used since it needs SHM/IPC tuning and
that is not as easy as it seems so my guess most people do not even try it
(no offense). Diskd by it's own runs several processes, one per cache_dir
what makes it naturally more SMP friendly as any other fs squid offers.
diskd also is lightning fast when configured well, specially under load
and I like to remember terabytes of databases using the same technology
with success since years so it can not be so bad ...
then resuming, for me, diskd is my choice on loaded servers and choked
links because it is faster for my application as a transparent frontend
cache on the only network router in an ISP environment. I am using diskd
since it came out and sure I ever tried the other options but none came
close.
Michel
...
****************************************************
Datacenter Matik http://datacenter.matik.com.br
E-Mail e Data Hosting Service para Profissionais.
****************************************************
