Re: [squid-users] diskd performs badly

Ok. Thanx!

Sometime these things can be strange.

Edward

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
To: "Edward D. Millington" <edward@cariaccess.com>
Cc: Squid Users <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:14:46 -0600
Subject: Re: [squid-users] diskd performs badly

> You misremember Edward,
>
> DiskD has never topped aufs in any tests I have done or seen results
> for
> on Linux.
>
> The margin isn't huge, though. aufs is CPU-hungry compared to diskd,
> so
> if you've got a lot more disks than CPU horsepower, DiskD might be
> preferable (but I wouldn't bet on it). Sometimes the balance of
> hardware can lead to surprising results...Duane found, for example,
> that
> ReiserFS is slower on his test box than ext2. I haven't really
> figured
> that one out yet, as I've never gotten those results, but I reckon it
> is
> due to the balance of available hardware resources. His box had
> several
> 10k RPM SCSI disks, and a relatively slow CPU, whereas my test boxes
> are
> usually 1 or 2 slower IDE disks and a similar or faster CPU.
>
> Edward D. Millington wrote:
>
> > Henrik!
> >
> > Didn't Joe Cooper ran some test comparing DiskD with Aufs and so
> on,
> > with DD coming slightly on top?
> >
> > I have personally find, without testing, just "feeling", a slight
> > performance when using DD. I have been using DD for over 2 years
> now.
> >
> > Edward
>
>
> --
> Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
> Web caching appliances and support.
> http://www.swelltech.com
Received on Fri Nov 08 2002 - 09:00:27 MST