[squid-users] Is Squid can shutdown unused idle redirector's children?

[Marcus Kool]

Yuri,

I suggest to consider using ufdbGuard instead of squidGuard.
Besides being faster is has a different structure:
the redirector that squid starts is a small lightweight process
that forwards requests to ufdbguardd, a multithreaded daemon which
has the URL database in memory.  The database is optimised
for memory and occupies less memory than all those squidguard
processes - where each process has a database cache of 10% or 15%
of the database - so 64 processes means that ufdbguard uses 640%
of the size of the database.

Marcus


On 02/12/2015 05:01 PM, Yuri Voinov wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> 13.02.15 0:49, Amos Jeffries пишет:
>> On 13/02/2015 7:01 a.m., Yuri Voinov wrote:
>>> Hi gents,
>>
>>> subj.
>>
>>> And, of course - question. How to do that? I've don't seen this,
>>> if it exists.
>>
>>> For example, for this config stub:
>>
>>> url_rewrite_program /usr/local/bin/squidGuard -c
>>> /usr/local/squidGuard/squidGuard.conf url_rewrite_children 100
>>> startup=0 idle=1 concurrency=0
>>
>>> After daily activity, at midnight, still remain near 60
>>> processes. Absolutely idle.
>>
>>> So, why?
>>
>> The idle=1 parameter "Sets a minimum ..."
>>
>> It actually is quite expensive to start them. At least one client
>> is being held in a pause waiting for it, and others are slowed down
>> while the CPU spawns the process.
>
> I understand. But Apache-like model will be better. And so, it works
> much years in web-front's. Timeout for idle - then shutdown all idle
> processed.
>
>>
>> Chances are high that the next day, or even a few seconds later
>> you will need to use them again anyway. So its a bit better to have
>> them idle than to discard completely.
>>
>> *Particularly* since you have no concurrency for the helper. A
>> single
> SquidGuard was never been threaded.
>
>> client loading a page with many objects can initiate many parallel
>> requests. Each of which will need to be processed by one of those
>> helpers.
>
> I understand. But will be better to have more weak instrumentation to
> manage children. Either Apache-like, or default.
>
> First query latency is important, but when I tun out of memory, this
> query will never be executed in any case.
>
> Moreover - some kernels - especially after swap out idle process, can
> not return it quickly to CPU.
>
> The system, which has permanently low memory, have hi risk to slow
> down to deep swaping.
>
> Amos, current mechanism is so ungainly. I want to have more powerful
> control over rewriter processes.
>
> Now they live their lives. By the end of the day I have a lot of
> running processes that do not do anything. And can occupy more than 1
> GB of RAM valuable. And there is no mechanism other than sporadic
> displacement of the operating system. If you accidentally took the memory.
>
> It's better than it was before, when I had 100 running redirectors
> always and 1.5 GB of memory consumed with the threat of a swap, but
> worse than the management of processes in Apache. And, therefore,
> memory management.
>
>>
>> Amos _______________________________________________ squid-users
>> mailing list squid-users at lists.squid-cache.org
>> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU3PiBAAoJENNXIZxhPexGL9QIAMgNh7ANHIfxBAITFka4tJB6
> neM0p29jBYlNHskrLyVNqhgDL6XagRCCYp9VzJqVajtCDCejasxx0NV0qDW19uu0
> 7HcepMGhL6l9WDGm9JyvQo4uz4/00F9ZE3EvUu2lyZmIFaX39rDNnVg64b7EbrJI
> fKoS0MfoXSPi+8I+nMcaGNdvWXIKXqsVhL5EJ6X690c2XvpjCv9HmGnf1/k2O6qe
> GJprX0yPDgXj0OJhNeM1WZfSa+PQIjD6VXwuqUXpSPU9DFnBT5sZoZ9QqZdUc3Io
> fhahOi7Rve3QD13sPb+4FE+pIZECLdvvJ1lWySn+l5zOJD5ZoEGis3qGJmj7xNM=
> =hYfs
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> squid-users mailing list
> squid-users at lists.squid-cache.org
> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
>