Re: Cachesize 4Gig

From: Gunnar Ingvi Thorisson <>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:03:36 +0000 (GMT)

> I have set up a squid 1.0.17 cache on a Linux 2.0.12 machine. The Cache of 4
> GB size is stored on a separate partition (the whole disk is for cache only).

Just make sure you format the disk with 1024 bytes per inode or 2048
bytes per inode, 1024 is probably better (normal is 4096 bytes per
inode). This will create an inode on each 1024 bytes on your disk, so
you'll be able to store much more of small files on your disk than usual
but it also makes your partition a bit smaller. This will prevent you
from filling a 1GB partition with e.g. 400 mb of small files. If you
check the space left on the device it says maybe 400 megs (of 1 GB) but
you might have only 150 megs stored in the cache if you havn't
formated this disk correctly (because you're running out of inodes).

> Is this the correct way to set it up, or would I get better performance by
> splitting the 4GB up into 4 partitions of 1 GB each, or something else?

You might get more performence by having 4 x 1 GB very fast SCSI disks or
2 x 2GB SCSI disks but I don't think you get more performance by
partitioning it. This all depends on your hard disks type and controller.

> BTW, the system is a Pentium 133 with 32 MB RAM. Is this reasonable with the
> mentioned cache size, or should I better add Memory?

It all depends on your network traffic/usage. You have to find it out on
your own, I would recommend upgrading memory before upgrading CPU.

> Right now, it would be easy for me to change configuration, since the cache
> is only filled with about 500 Meg. But in 2 weeks, the system will be put to
> heavy load, and then I need all the cache and the best of performance I can get.

How much money do you have? :-) How much are you willing to spend?

Best regards, Gunnar
Gunnar Ingvi Thorisson
Iceland Software inc.
Received on Thu Oct 17 1996 - 05:03:51 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:33:18 MST