[squid-users] Optimizing squid

[Heiler Bemerguy]

Not to mention only 10GB of cache is almost useless for us... lol

But I still think cpu is cpu and i/o is i/o. "WAIT" fields on both TOP 
and VMSTAT shows almost always a ZERO

Why would it show a process using cpu while actually it's waiting for a 
I/O.. ?

Best Regards

-- 
Heiler Bemerguy - (91) 98151-4894
Assessor Técnico - CINBESA (91) 3184-1751


Em 24/02/2016 17:13, Yuri Voinov escreveu:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>   
> AFAIK, if you solve issue with cache_mem 10 GB and completely disabled
> disk cache, then you had disk IO bottleneck exactly. You completely
> disable disk caches. So, all obvious now.
>
> But - what you will do after squid restart? :))))))))))))) A deadly cold
> memory cache, hehehe
>
> 25.02.16 1:44, Heiler Bemerguy пишет:
>> Hi Eliezer, thanks for your reply.
>>
>> As you've suggested, I removed all cache_dirs to verify if the rest
> was stable/fast and raised cache_mem to 10GB. I didn't disable access
> logs because we really need it..
>> And it is super fast, I can't even notice it using only ONE core..
> (and it isn't running as smp)
>> %Cpu0  :  0,7 us,  1,0 sy,  0,0 ni, 98,3 id,  0,0 wa,  0,0 hi,  0,0
> si,  0,0 st
>> %Cpu1  :  8,8 us,  5,6 sy,  0,0 ni, 76,1 id,  0,0 wa,  0,0 hi,  9,5
> si,  0,0 st
>> %Cpu2  :  8,7 us,  4,0 sy,  0,0 ni, 83,3 id,  0,0 wa,  0,0 hi,  4,0
> si,  0,0 st
>> %Cpu3  :  5,4 us,  3,4 sy,  0,0 ni, 86,2 id,  0,0 wa,  0,0 hi,  5,0
> si,  0,0 st
>> %Cpu4  :  7,8 us,  5,1 sy,  0,0 ni, 73,5 id,  6,8 wa,  0,0 hi,  6,8
> si,  0,0 st
>> %Cpu5  :  1,0 us,  1,0 sy,  0,0 ni, 98,0 id,  0,0 wa,  0,0 hi,  0,0
> si,  0,0 st
>>    PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S  %CPU %MEM    TIME+ COMMAND
>> 11604 proxy     20   0 11,6g  11g 5232 S  48,4 72,2  72:31.24 squid
>>
>> Start Time:     Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:38:59 GMT
>> Current Time:   Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:18:30 GMT
>> Connection information for squid:
>>          Number of clients accessing cache:      1433
>>          Number of HTTP requests received:       2532800
>>          Average HTTP requests per minute since start:   11538.5
>>          Select loop called: 68763019 times, 0.192 ms avg
>>          Storage Mem size:       9874500 KB
>>          Storage Mem capacity:   94.2% used,  5.8% free
>>
>> I don't think I had a bottleneck on I/O itself, maybe the hash/search
> of cache indexes was too much for a single thread?
>> Best Regards,
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>   
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWzg7aAAoJENNXIZxhPexG/1MIAJnQdPpdH3OvlkNrHhdEf+bm
> CrjM6BCvsADHW9udmeH4jS/U3ko4iLI/oayQELIP3WoH+hQ5pszyp8u0zfDfUkn6
> s4vFOOvgSUmPxn70FQhFX93z6IhySFkKHiSvUMuN/2prH86pFz3J6+byxUMySKoU
> lXkImzeFVBHJLMaaVOlAZ1SwJUVb2LhUgoY7GesK7gT2mW09phFGG9I/3Sz+0Jmx
> fYkZBZLPMoIPNknJqlebsv/s8CaQ3Vb4bpstLZgVNxlBX0UmW7Ohu7cNOrTFXovb
> ooojx4nsDl8esDfrfJ/NSBVuxi7vO7jAP82gqkoJB3qQkHtAi6O66Qvr5gSBt7s=
> =/h/N
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> squid-users mailing list
> squid-users at lists.squid-cache.org
> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squid-cache.org/pipermail/squid-users/attachments/20160224/725d1c90/attachment.html>