On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:44:32 +1300
Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:31:21 +0000, RW wrote:
> > Years ago I read something about how memory cache performance
> > degraded
> > progressively with increasing object size, and that increasing
> > maximum_object_size_in_memory substantially could actually degrade
> > performance. Has this been fixed in both 3.x and 2.x?
>
> Individual object size problems is not a limit on total RAM size
> used by Squid or its memory cache. You can allocate many GB of RAM
> cache then only store a few million <1KB objects in it.
>
> Most of the the large object (up to 2GB) problems were solved in
> 3.0. The remainder (>2GB objects) were solved in 3.1.15.
That's not what I'm referring to. IIRC there were some tests that
showed that UFS (with OS-level disk-caching) outperformed memory
cache above a certain object size. I think the cut-off was well
under 100k.
Received on Thu Nov 17 2011 - 00:42:27 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Nov 17 2011 - 12:00:02 MST