RE: [SQU] squid recommended cache and directory size - cache_dir

I know it's been a while since this email first went out - but I just
thought I'd ask the obvious question.

Has anyone looked into the optimal L2 size for ReiserFS ?

Thanks,
PhiL P

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Nordstrom [mailto:hno@hem.passagen.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 11:16 AM
> To: Lee, Ethan
> Cc: squid-users@ircache.net
> Subject: Re: [SQU] squid recommended cache and directory size -
> cache_dir
>
>
> Lee, Ethan wrote:
> >
> > thanks for your reply. In this case are u saying for 18GB,
> i would hv 36 (or
> > more) L1 directory but same 256 L2 directory ie. L2 remains
> unchanged ? how
> > would i verify that this is optimum performance.
>
> AFAIK It does not have a very big impact on performance.
>
> If tuning these then it is L2 that is the metric important for
> performance. L1 only needs to be big enought to support the number of
> objects stored in the cache.
>
> The default L2 value is selected to be reasonable on most UNIX:es with
> UFS like directories. If you have some other filesystem where
> directories are stored in a smarter way then using a higher L2 value
> might be beneficial to make better use of the filesystem enhancements.
>
> --
> Henrik Nordstrom
> Squid hacker
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://www.squid-cache.org/mailing-lists.html
>
>

--
To unsubscribe, see http://www.squid-cache.org/mailing-lists.html