On 22/01/2013 2:00 a.m., babajaga wrote:
>> Rock and COSS storage types however are far more optimized for speed,
> using both disk and RAM storage in ther normal "disk" configuration. <
>
> Amos,
>
> haven't you been a little bit too "generous" in your comments, especially
> this referred one ?
I don't think so. They *have* been optimized for speed and are
measurably so.
I made no comment about bug-free state in any of the disk I/O modues.
Just about speed versus a RAM disk.
>
> I looked at the docs both for COSS and Rock, and the following excerpts made
> me a bit skeptical:
>
> 1) COSS:
> Changes in 3.3 cache_dir
> COSS storage type is lacking stability fixes from 2.6
>
> When I read such a statement, I refuse to use this feature in a production
> environment. Even in case, it has a lot of speed advantages. One crash might
> wipe out all speed advantages.
As it was intended. Until somebody wants to do the portage its unlikely
to change either. We have debated both removing COSS entirely or
expending the effort to debug it fully. Neither debate came to a
satisfactory conclusion yet. The developers do agree that: Rock was
designed to do the same things as COSS and does them a bit better, and
COSS is not worth our time fixing. If you or someone else has a
different opinion patches are still welcome (so we are required to leave
the COSS code present in 3.2+).
Note also that it is referring to the squid-3 version of COSS. There was
some bug fixes that went into squid-2.6 and COSS in 2.7 has a proven
track record for high performance now. Rock was built on that 2.7 track
record with a few design fixes for lessons learned since COSS was
created and SMP support.
> 2) Rock:
> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/RockStore#limitations
> 2a) Rock store is available since Squid version 3.2.0.13. It has received
> some lab and limited deployment testing. It needs more work to perform well
> in a variety of environments, but appears to be usable in some of them.
> 2b)Objects larger than 32,000 bytes cannot be cached when cache_dirs are
> shared among workers.
> 2c)Current implementation uses OS buffers for simplicity.
>
> When reading 2a) I start to be cautious again :-)
Good. It is a new feature, the small number of people using it so far
give us confidence enough to promote it but not to say its bug-free.
Problems may occur in a situation where nobody has tried using it. Also
we are aware that startup time is slower with Rock than we would like.
That is all 2a means.
By all means be cautious. But please do not let that stop you testing or
using it. The more people we have using it the more confident we can be
that it is bug-free.
> 2b) tells me, it very much depends upon the mean size/standard deviation of
> the cached objects, whether using Rock really has an advantage. Might change
> in the future with Rock-large, though.
> 2c) Makes the theoretical approach to evaluate performance advantages of
> Rock almost impossible. Because you always have to consider the filesystem
> used, with the respective options, having a huge impact on performance. So
> the only serious approach right now to advocate possible performance
> advantages would be after quite some benchmarking, using real workloads.
> Which certainly are very site specific.
> Because of the basic principle of Rock and Rock-large (which are like
> filesystems themselves), using raw disk-I/O is possible in the future, at
> least, which MIGHT THEN justify a general statement "much more optimized to
> speed".
The COSS model is a slice model the same way that a disk backed RAM-disk
operates its swap pages. In both designs large chunks of memory are
swapped in and out to fetch items stored somewhere within that chunk.
Under the UFS on RAM-disk model these would be allocated random disk
locations by the generic disk manager and each is swapped in
individually only after being requested by the client. Under Rock/COSS
requests within a certain time range of each other are assigned slots
within one memory page/chunk - such that a client loading a page causes,
with a high probability, the related objects, images, scripts - to be
swapped in and ready to served directly from the RAM area slice before
they are requested by the client. Overall this means the latency of a
first-request is either the same as RAM or the same as disk I/O, PLUS
the latency of followup related items is that of RAM *instead* of disk
I/O - for a total net reduction in latency / gain in speed when loading
a web page.
As you can see this is also very page-centric. If you are using Squid as
gateway for a web app which does not have that type of page-centric
temporal linkage between its requests the storage types become much
closer in latency.
Yes, it is *complicated*, with a great many factors which we have not or
cannot measure with any accuracy.
Amos
Received on Tue Jan 22 2013 - 03:59:18 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jan 22 2013 - 12:00:04 MST