Re: [squid-users] Performance Extremely squid configuration advice

On 08/01/11 06:22, Drunkard Zhang wrote:
> 2011/1/8 Mohsen Saeedi<mohsen.saeedi_at_gmail.com>:
>> I know about coss. it's great. but i have squid 3.1 and i think it's
>> unstable in 3.x version. that's correct?
>
> I need "null" for memory-only cache, which is not provided in squid-3,
> so it's all squid-2.x in product environment.

The memory cache has been made default in Squid-3. Removing all
cache_dir entries moves squid-3 to the same operational state as squid-2
with a fake "null" directory.

> Of cource, we tested every squid-3.x, many bugs and poor performance
> to squid-2.x. We tested squid-2.HEAD too, it's worth to try.

Which 3.x? We just had reports that 3.1.10 is faster than 2.7.STABLE9
(in RPS). Prior to that it has been slower. If there are any bugs you
are aware of that are not already reported or fixed in bugzilla please
report. Also, please add your additional knowledge to the bugzilla
entries to aid a faster fix.

>
> aufs acts very bad under high presure, with 8GB memory and least SATA
> aufs space per instance, it's still too hard to over 180Mbps.
>
> I haven't try diskd yet.
>

Thanks for this.

Amos

-- 
Please be using
   Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.10
   Beta testers wanted for 3.2.0.4