[squid-users] Large rock supporting with stable squid version

[Ahmed Allzaeem]

Hi Amos , thank you.

I just wanted to explain something

Now , im okay without SMP , I can save bandwidth and its fine...but cores are not balanced and that may lead some cpu cores reach 100 %

But...... I need to use SMP with large rock to save bandwidth .... now it works fine ...but no saving !!
Im using 3.4.7 stable 

What I need is ,
Someone used 3.head and found a result of saving bandwith.....as an example wt max cache size and mem size allow in large rock ?


That wt I need .... I need a fast browsing squid  that can save my bandwidth.
Amos , can u guide me with a 3.head verison you used with large rock and gave you thr best results of saving bandwidth ???

regards

-----Original Message-----
From: squid-users [mailto:squid-users-bounces at lists.squid-cache.org] On Behalf Of Amos Jeffries
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:53 PM
To: squid-users at lists.squid-cache.org
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Large rock supporting with stable squid version

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 25/10/2014 2:09 a.m., Ahmed Allzaeem wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I want to ask about Large rock supporting.
> 
> In large rock supporting wts the max size for disk store ? and max 
> size of ram store?

The disk store limit depends on HDD/SSD space available. That goes for all cache_dir types.


What do you mean by "ram store" ?

 IIRC, rock storage does away with the split memory/disk "slices"
which were used in COSS. So there is no tricky management of how many slices are in memory and swapping in/out.

 Squid has a RAM store (cache_mem) which is not particularly related to Rock storage. You need to tune that cache_mem size around how much RAM is used for all cache_dir existing, and active transaction needs.
Nobody can tell you the answer since the administrative "test, measure, tune" process is the only way to find it.


> 
> I need someone tried large rock with squid 3.head version and have 
> seen a stability , I used last time squid3.head but it hanged after 
> sometime
> 

Details required. "hangs after some time" and "it" are very vague.

> 
> I need  a help with a squid large rock  best practice.
> 

The feature is still in beta. As an early adopter you are one of the people whose feedback will define what the best practice in future will be.

Despite being *capable* of large object storage rock is optimal for small objects. UFS/AUFS/diskd cache types are optimal for large objects - except no SMP sharing there yet which is just annoying.

For now the regular best practice for cache_dir in general applies. To ensure you have enough RAM for cache index (10-15MB er GB of cached
data) not to cause memory swapping, to ensure you do not exceded available disk space, etc. etc.

Amos

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUTuj5AAoJELJo5wb/XPRjwW4IAJcHO5Nbz1y1DZ8K3vIWLEaQ
02kqrTShzkciM98dzMfBzRytq/8zuCiQNW463vgxdypTmcYKo4vNCfuGuf8Jo8yY
MxmTsEgZQvZgxCrpCBPuklzz2oyGcIrXvtL0OJZ1WqNL0oa8fjHjJ1YP5RMeGHD4
LwHbM0OI1+MEpGErCETFXGiO5EZz2pnHfWj8VNz3Eb81Dm0whJy09gfayX4Nqm77
W1/1k4fihXZ2WtLvKPqN16fBOrWJUxe0x3r5vhb9YTv/mbU06jv3EPa58tXAI6H0
Etno/ITlwbkJOhvpCJpl6r5BeQyuATEI1NLG1Ffg3Cd5x/cc8NTJHMPUIBhXlHk=
=+IXG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
squid-users mailing list
squid-users at lists.squid-cache.org
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users