Re: [squid-users] high memory usage (squid 3.2.0)

From: Marcello Romani <>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:29:14 +0200

Il 10/04/2013 13:59, Mr Dash Four ha scritto:
> Marcello Romani wrote:
>> Il 09/04/2013 19:33, Mr Dash Four ha scritto:
>> > [snip]
>>> if the maximum_object_size_in_memory is reduced,
>>> then I suppose squid's memory footprint will have to go down too, which
>>> makes the cache_mem option a bit useless.
>> I think will just store more objects in RAM.
> I am sorry, but I don't understand that logic.
> If I set cache_mem (which is supposed to be the limit of ram squid is
> going to use for caching), then the maximum_object_size_in_memory should
> be irrelevant. The *number* of objects to be placed in memory should
> depend on cache_mem, not the other way around.

You're wrong.
Each object that squid puts into cache_mem can have a different size.
Thus the number of objects stored in cache_mem will vary over time
depending on the traffic and selection algorithms.

> What currently seems to happen is that cache_mem is completely ignored
> and squid is trying to shove up as many objects into my ram as possible,
> to the point where nothing else on that machine is able to function
> nominally. This is like putting cart in front of the horse - ridiculous!

As stated elsewhere, previous versions of squid had memory leaks. That
doesn't mean squid is _designed_ to put as many objects in ram as possible.

Also, the cache_mem value must not be confused with a hard limit on
total squid memory usage (which AFAIK cannot be set). For example
there's also the memory used to manage the on-disk cache (10MB per GB
IIRC - google it for a reliable answer).

Marcello Romani
Received on Wed Apr 10 2013 - 12:29:18 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Apr 10 2013 - 12:00:05 MDT