Re: [squid-users] ufs/aufs/diskd question

On Linux aufs is about 20% faster. But why fix it if it aint broke? If
DiskD is performing well for you, then leave it be.

Both are pretty equally reliable, I think, though I haven't used DiskD
enough to be sure. aufs is very reliable on Squid 2.4STABLE2 (but maybe
not STABLE1). Someone posted a FD leak patch recently (post STABLE2),
but I haven't heard from Henrik or Adrian or Robert on whether it's a
serious problem or not. I haven't hit an FD problem, but we only have a
couple of 2.4 boxes in production, and those for a very short time.

Whitley GS11 Cecil H wrote:

> Hi all,
> I am new to squid. We are running a mixed environment (m.s. proxy and
> squid) and are migrating to squid. In reading the documentation and faq, I
> still have a question. Which is better/faster/more reliable, aufs or
> diskd???
>
> hardware: dell poweredge 4400
> os: redhat 7.1
> Server is running the "out-of-the-box" enterprise smp kernel.
>
> squid 2.4.STABLE1
> squidGuard 1.1.4
>
> Cache is actually up and running in production. Concept proven, migration
> begins. That was using diskd. I am seeing many many posts here using aufs,
> am I missing out?

                                   --
                      Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
                  Affordable Web Caching Proxy Appliances
                         http://www.swelltech.com
Received on Tue Sep 04 2001 - 09:48:40 MDT