[squid-users] Re: does rock type deny being dedicated to specific process ??

From: Ahmad <ahmed.zaeem_at_netstream.ps>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 00:01:45 -0700 (PDT)

hi amos ,
i read bad news about rock when rock shared between process , i read that it
reduce hit ratio !

i read form
it says :
/Objects larger than 32,000 bytes cannot be cached when cache_dirs are
shared among workers. Rock Store itself supports arbitrary slot sizes, but
disker processes use IPC I/O (rather than Blocking I/O) which relies on
shared memory pages, which are currently hard-coded to be 32KB in size. You
can manually raise the shared page size to 64KB or even more by modifying
Ipc::Mem::PageSize(), but you will waste more RAM by doing so. To
efficiently support shared caching of larger objects, we need to teach Rock
Store to read and write slots in chunks smaller than the slot size. /

as i understood , the max object size for disk caching will be 32 k ,
am i correct ???
i see it will be slow writing on hardisks an slow caching !

am i correct ???

thats why i want to give each hardisk of my disks of rock type a single
process !!
also , im not understating u here ,
* If you use ${process_number} or
${process_name} macros these channels are never setup and things WILL break.




View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/does-rock-type-deny-being-dedicated-to-specific-process-tp4662919p4662938.html
Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Received on Sun Oct 27 2013 - 07:02:30 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Oct 27 2013 - 12:00:06 MDT