Re: [SQU] current CVS ... diskd config args changed ...

From: Chris Conn <>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:05:47 -0500

Joe Cooper wrote:
> I benchmarked them a couple of months back. aufs was, then, about 10%
> faster than diskd on a dual disk system.
> I have not yet benchmarked a recent 2.4PRE-STABLE Squid, however.


I have read the following URL following your postings in this thread,
which have sparked my interest:

Is it inferred with 2.4-PRE-STABLE that we can once again use ASYNCIO on
Linux GLIBC2.x systems? Would it be acceptable to use ASYNCIO and aufs
on such a system? With PTHREADS?

To be honest, I have tried 2.4PRE-STABLE with a Linux system, PIII
800Mhz, 2x15GB partitions, 768MB RAM and a 80M/sec SCSI card and the
system's load average under 2.3STABLE4 is about 0.80 at 2000 req/min,
and using diskd with 2.4PRE-STABLE on the same system, my load average
would hover between 2.5 to 3.0, so I obviously reverted back to
2.3STABLE4. My system's library is GLIBC 2.1.3.

Also, there is a bug mentioned in the bug watcher about delay pools.
What is the status on this? Is the patch mentioned functional? I am
referring to .



To unsubscribe, see
Received on Fri Mar 02 2001 - 14:11:28 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:58:28 MST