[squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

[Stakres]

Hi All,

I face a weird issue regarding DISKS cache-dir model and I would like to
have your expertise here 

Here is the result of a cache object with an AUFS cache_dir:
1436916227.603    462 192.168.1.88 00:0c:29:6e:2c:99 TCP_HIT/200 10486356
GET http://proof.ovh.net/files/10Mio.dat - HIER_NONE/-
application/octet-stream 0x30

Now, here is the same object from the same Squid box but using the DISKD
cache_dir:
1436916293.648  24281 192.168.1.88 00:0c:29:6e:2c:99 TCP_HIT/200 10486356
GET http://proof.ovh.net/files/10Mio.dat - HIER_NONE/-
application/octet-stream 0x30

Do you see something weird ?
This is the same Squid (3.5.5), I just changed from AUFS to DISKD and
restarted the Squid...

Same object from the cache but *0.462 sec* in AUFS and *24.281 sec* in
DISKD.
52 times more fast in AUFS, why ?

Any idea to speed the diskd up or at least reduce it ?
I could understand the response times could not be the same, but here this
is the Grand Canyon !

My cache_dir option used in test:
cache_dir diskd /var/spool/squid3w1 190780 16 256 min-size=0
max-size=293038080


Thanks in advance for your input...

Bye Fred




--
View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/AUFS-vs-DISKS-tp4672209.html
Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.