I too would love to see a truely useful comparison, but one big
question comes to mind: What about the drive that Squid writes it's own
logs (cache.log, access.log, etc.) to? Would this drive hold Squid back if
the cache was on a RAID array? Would Squid just queue all the log writing
requests until the drive could catch up? Or would it just be best to leave
some room on the RAID array to hold Squid's logs?
-Bill
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Eric Stern wrote:
> (This is a general observation and not aimed at anyone in particular).
>
> People keep saying this about RAID. (it kicks butt! its honking fast!
> etc).
> Fine, we all know RAID is fast. BUT, has anyone done an apples to apples
> comparison of a squid w/RAID to a squid without RAID?
>
> I'm talking about a cache with 5 standalone drives vs a a cache with 5
> drives in a RAID array. No fair comparing a RAID setup to a cache with 1
> drive.
>
> I haven't either, but I'm guessing you would find that, in this particular
> case, RAID is not all that much faster. Squid divides up your cache
> between the 5 drives, and statistically there should be enough randomness
> in the requests that IO is divided fairly evenly among the drives.
>
> Note I am NOT talking about RAID in general. I am talking about this
> specific application (squid cache).
>
> /-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
> / Eric Stern - PacketStorm Technologies - (519) 837-0824 /
> / http://www.packetstorm.on.ca /
> / WebSpeed - a transparent web caching server - available now! /
> /-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 08 1998 - 20:44:54 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:39:38 MST