Re: Squid-FS

--MimeMultipartBoundary
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> > A better approach would be to write a high (Squid) level "Squid FS".
> > Unfortunately(?), we do not have time for this in 1.2.
>
> I am not convinced that a Squid-FS is the right path for Squid.

If you go back to the previous posts on this topic, you will see that by
SquidFS I mean "big", "DB-style" files with many objects per file _on top_ of
an existing FS. Thus, we gain performance benefits (see previous posts for a
long list) and preserve advantages of Unix FS (recovery and such).
 
> Is the FS overhead really that huge that it is worth the amount of work
> needed to build a Squid-FS?

Is reducing hit response time by half "huge"?

At least third of hit response time is due to local disk I/O. The actual
effect is probably bigger (>=50%?) because disk I/Os compete with network
I/Os in one select loop. I have no hard proof that SquidFS can eliminate all
of this overhead, of course. These are just estimations.

$0.02,
 
Alex.

--MimeMultipartBoundary--
Received on Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:15:47 MDT