Re: [squid-users] Slow cache

On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 11:10, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 28.12 16:36, Paul Clayton wrote:
> > We have squid Version 2.5.STABLE7 installed, Redhat Fedora Core 1. 1Gb
> > Ram Pentium Xeon 3.06Ghz
> >
> > Our cache size is 7.5Gb for 120 users. Average daily downloads vary
> > between 2Gb-6Gb. During some testing, we noticed that http downloads
> > were significantly slower than bypassing the cache and going direct.
> >
> > Typical readings were 19Kbytes per second through the cache versus
> > 250Kbytes per second going direct. Playing with the memory did make
> > impact, but the optimum we can attain is having a cache memory of 256Mb
> > and 16Mb memory pools. ALthough messing with the memory pools, did not
> > make much difference.
>
> I would say this problem is outta squid. It may be wrong network setup
> (half duplex vs full duplex), not using DMA on disk (is it IDE disk?)
> and probably not ideal filesystem.
>
> I'd recomend using bigger disk cache - for accomodating week's traffic you
> should have 30GB cache imho. Tuning up filesystem may help too, using xfs
> or reisersfs (with notail option) on cache disk and probably use dedicated
> cache drive.

Nope... The book - "Squid - the definitive guide" shows that ext3 is
still faster then reiserfs.

Search the archives for the bit which I wrote and quoted from the book

-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 14:44:13 up 5:42, 6 users, 
load average: 0.48, 0.59, 0.51