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

[Yuri Voinov]

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

I talking not about another redirector. But about smart Squid
behaviour with redirector's children.

If I wanted to change redirector - I would have already done it. I am
aware of the existence of ufdvGuard. Moreover - I've tried to build it
on my system. Failed - it cannot build without dancing with a
tambourine. I have enough Squid with his tambourines.

I only want to more control over redirector's processes. Not more. And
cnanging free redirector to commercial one is not an option.


13.02.15 2:06, Marcus Kool пишет:
> 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:
> 
> 
> 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
>>>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU3QjnAAoJENNXIZxhPexG6b4H/ibFEpNS5f25ESr3H6EttwrN
2kW2bWd52g3C7SeM783K9f92EOpNgwLSXd2SDKXnQAfJeYoYl6AqPge5vjg7l6R2
YB0PbAnjJZvju7gmRfYqhhcXAasGBPq1Ot5vbnoo6JNP3JEjoxRlFPo9KKPxXmLF
q32bw1z7D8hExkMBZx/Esq44kISpxo3fNx9Zd1EwhnzzXcX5qcwoZ46/pWOiHd5/
4hd9u1ZAoOFFfAc64YiP49rXcelAFgO7nl5NLOcx50n4F+uTa14lRhrhmmmex/Wz
tdwEXXpwnXsJKCwt/zMJo3StW05/DxmVXidjfUWuHlSA10RKRbsPRaWRBtKPba0=
=t+/k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----