Re: [Fwd: Re: [squid-users] Recommended cache_dir config for large system]

--- On Wed, 7/16/08, Rhino <rhino_at_machlink.com> wrote:

> From: Rhino <rhino_at_machlink.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [squid-users] Recommended cache_dir config for large system]
> To: richard_hubbe11_at_yahoo.com
> Cc: squid-users_at_squid-cache.org
> Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 6:55 PM
> Richard Hubbell wrote:
> >
> > --- On Wed, 7/16/08, Rhino <rhino_at_machlink.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> From: Rhino <rhino_at_machlink.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [squid-users] Recommended
> cache_dir config for large system]
> >> To: richard_hubbe11_at_yahoo.com
> >> Cc: squid-users_at_squid-cache.org
> >> Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 2:53 PM
> >> Richard Hubbell wrote:
> >>
> >>>> THanks much for the quick response,
> Henrik.
> >>>> Filesystem for cache disks currently
> configured
> >>>>
> >> for
> >>
> >>>> reiserfs with
> >>>> notail/noatime opts.
> >>>> I did not have the fd amounts set, nor
> >>>>
> >> ip_local_port_range.
> >>
> >>>> My cache_dirs have each disk mounted as
> partition,
> >>>>
> >> i.e.
> >>
> >>>> disk1=/squid1
> >>>> disk2=/squid2; would your suggestion
> >>>> be then to halve each disk and partition
> each as
> >>>>
> >> cache_dir?
> >>
> >>>> (i.e, go
> >>>> from squid1-4 to squid1-8 across the 4
> disks)
> >>>> Also have a 5th disk of equal size that
> has to be
> >>>>
> >> used for
> >>
> >>>> OS, just fyi
> >>>> - so these 4 are totally dedicated to
> Squid.
> >>>> thanks again, appreciate your input.
> >>>> -Ryan
> >>>>
> >>> Just curious why reiserfs? I don't think
> it's
> >>>
> >> supported any longer.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> size/speed considerations when we set the system
> up
> >> originally. It's
> >> worked well so far.
> >> cheers
> >>
> >
> > Okay, do you mean better performance with larger
> number of files?
> > I'm using ext3 that's why I'm asking.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> we went with the reiserfs out of googling the choices and
> most impressed
> with what we found on it as opposed to ext3.
> we're also using sata drives, if that helps; just hoped
> for the best
> combination once the server was in production.
> I'm not suggesting this is in fact the optimum
> combination - I'm no
> linux or filesystem expert by any means.
> Just trying to keep our customers happy and my paycheck
> coming :)
> -Ryan

Yep, no problem. We're using ext3 on redhat since that's what's supported. Always good to hear/learn from others' experience.

We've seen some issues with processes spending a litte too much time in "D" state (as reported by ps) a.k.a. uninteruptible sleep. Not clear what is causing that yet. Seems like a deadlock somewhere. Not in squid. We saw it in apache and others.

      
Received on Thu Jul 17 2008 - 02:16:49 MDT