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

From: Dr.x <ahmed.zaeem_at_netstream.ps>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:28:01 -0700 (PDT)

hi amos ,
Question 1 :

about aufs dir ,
 about smp ,
you say that it dont work with smp
but my question is more accurate ,
i c that it dont share workers , but it works if we assign specific
process to specific cache dir .

in my opinion we could solve our problem of cpu load partially ??!!!
because without smp , all cache dir aufs or not aufs , were sharing the same
process , and this process was not getting beneift of all cores ""uptill now
this is my understanding "

again , my question is ,
we should not say that auf dir dont work with smp completely , but to be
accurate we can say that aufs dont work with shared workers , but we can
get benefit of smp to load cpu cores and set each core to instance aufs dir
and as a result we solved our cpu load partially ,

i just want to understand this issue and with to correct me about the info i
posted here ,


Amos Jeffries-2 wrote
> PS: if you want to experiment, you could try given the frontend and
> backend config two slightly different cache_dir lines. So the frontend
> has a "read-only" flag but otherwise identical settings. In theory that
> would make the frontend able to HIT on the rock cache, but only the
> backends able to store things there.
> Amos

not understanding yet ,
why add to front end a cahe dir ???
did u mean to put cache dir into process squid # 1??



View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/does-rock-type-deny-being-dedicated-to-specific-process-tp4662919p4662997.html
Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Received on Tue Oct 29 2013 - 09:28:49 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Oct 29 2013 - 12:00:06 MDT