2011/1/8 Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>:
> 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.
My fault :-). Thanks.
>> 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.
>
Received on Sat Jan 08 2011 - 01:02:17 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Jan 08 2011 - 12:00:02 MST