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

[Marcus Kool]

On 02/12/2015 06:11 PM, Yuri Voinov wrote:
> -----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.

You never tried the support desk of ufdbGuard either.

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

ufdbGuard is not a commercial redirector, but is free and
works with any free database or your own database/blacklist.
It has an additional option to use a commercial database.

>
> 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-----
>
>