Steven Wilton wrote:
>>Heheh..."only" is a relative term. Our old 500 Mhz boxes
>>couldn't even
>>work two 7200 RPM IDE disks (on different buses, of course)
>>effectively,
>>and three provided a barely measurable boost. I'd be
>>surprised if you
>>aren't able to easily max your CPU with ReiserFS on a
>>polygraph run on
>>these boxes...and it will probably happen at around 110 reqs/sec.,
>>assuming reasonable configuration of kernel and Squid.
>>
>
>
> We currently get arount 70 reqs/sec using 25% CPU (5 minute average for both
> values) on this hardware. I'm confident that I'll get a pretty high number
> of requests/second through these proxies becase of the epoll patch.
Ah, yes, epoll could very well be an interesting twist...and it might
make the relative filesystem results come out very differently.
Received on Mon Apr 11 2005 - 20:34:59 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Sun May 01 2005 - 12:00:06 MDT