[squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

[FredB]

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Fred.
> 
> It's depending your OS.
> 
> Depending your hardware.
> 
> Depending your OS configuration.
> 
> Tuning is very complex problem and tuning is EVIL.
> 
> Remember it.
> 


Yuri. my tests are very very basic

I think in this case this is not a matter of tuning, Squid 3.4.13 and squid 3.5.6, same OS, same config, same object downloaded, same cache size, no other user, no lan - directly connected -
The only difference is aufs/diskd in squid.conf
Result, very slow with 3.5.6 and diskd

Top

1 - squid 3.4.13/3.5.6 + aufs -> Fast, but with many users a lot of messages in cache.log, stress me ;)
2 - squid 3.4.13 -> diskd -> more slow
3 - squid 3.5.6 -> diskd -> very slow, unusable ?

Maybe my other problem with aufs (warning messages) needs tuning but I don't know what to do exactly.

As other Fred, I see that there is something strange, maybe you are right but I'm curious to know what special config (not needed before) I should put, my Internet access - 100 mbps - is, very, more faster than my direct access disk (again there is no other user in my test machine).

I hope I will find time to test rock store soon, with and without high load.

Please Amos, can you just make a test with the latest version ? Maybe there is something wrong here - and for the other Fred too -, just downloading a "large" file in cache without any other user, with aufs and also diskd ,if you can directly with loopback address.