Re: [squid-users] Number of Spindles

Things have changed somewhat since that algorithm was decided upon.

Directory searches were linear and the amount of buffer cache /
directory name cache available wasn't huge.

Having large directories took time to search and took RAM to cache.

Noone's really sat down and done any hard-core tuning - or at least,
they've done it, but haven't published the results anywhere. :)

Adrian

2008/12/3 Nyamul Hassan <mnhassan_at_usa.net>:
> Why aren't there any (or marginal / insignificant) improvements over 3
> spindles? Is it because squid is a single threaded application?
>
> On this note, what impact does the L1 and L2 directories have on AUFS
> performance? I understand that these are there to control the number of
> objects in each folder. But, what would be a good number of files to keep
> in a directory, performance wise?
>
> Regards
> HASSAN
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>
> To: "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik_at_henriknordstrom.net>
> Cc: "Nyamul Hassan" <mnhassan_at_usa.net>; "Squid Users"
> <squid-users_at_squid-cache.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 04:33
> Subject: Re: [squid-users] Number of Spindles
>
>
>>> sön 2008-11-30 klockan 09:56 +0600 skrev Nyamul Hassan:
>>>
>>>> "The primary purpose of these tests is to show that Squid's performance
>>>> doesn't increase in proportion to the number of disk drives. Excluding
>>>> other
>>>> factors, you may be able to get better performance from three systems
>>>> with
>>>> one disk drive each, rather than a single system with three drives."
>>>
>>> There is a significant difference up to 3 drives in my tests.
>>>
>>
>> Um, can you clarify please? Do you mean difference in experience than
>> described, or separate systems are faster up to 3 drives?
>>
>> Amos
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Fri Dec 05 2008 - 18:32:30 MST