Re: minimal VM usage version of Squid

From: Berndt Josef Wulf <>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 21:43:53 +1030 (CST)

Stewart Forster wrote
> > After receiving numerous messages about Squid's hunger for memory,
> > I spent a couple of days hacking up a version which writes immediately
> > to disk. It is probably inefficient to the other extreme--all objects
> > are written to disk. Uncachable objects are promptly removed.
> >
> > This code seems to have a number of bugs still, but if you want
> > to try it out, it can be found at:
> >
> >
> >
> > You certainly should not replace your existing squid installations with
> > this one. But I'd be interested to hear from people concerning its
> > perceived performance. And of course any bug fixes would be wonderful.
> Pushing everything out to disk will be slower but not by a large amount.
> Using asynch disk I/O will also help heaps there. I've practically finished
> debug/testing asynch I/O here at Connect and it is a large performance win
> although CPU gets chewed doing frequent polling when requests are outstanding
> (roughly 50% - up from 25% using non-async I/O on our boxes).
> We found major memory wins by switching malloc libraries. Libc malloc and
> GNU malloc simply cannot cope with squid's memory allocation patterns and do
> a VERY poor job when memory runs low. We gained a factor of 4 performance
> in low memory situations just by changing the malloc library. Unfortunately
> the malloc library we used is not in the public domain...

Still, it would be nice to know which commercial version of the
malloc library gives this performance boost. Could you give us some

cheerio Berndt

Name	: Berndt Josef Wulf
E-Mail	:
Sysinfo	: DEC AXPpci33+, NetBSD-1.2
Received on Tue Jan 07 1997 - 03:27:02 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:34:00 MST