No. You've misunderstood me, Khiz.
The ratio I mentioned is how much memory Squid /will/ use. Not how much
you should configure in cache_mem. cache_mem is completely separate
from the a amount needed by Squid to keep up with it's swap.state and
other necessary stuff.
cache_mem is for in-transit objects, hot objects and a few other odds
and ends. You define it to be whatever you want, 2MB or 200MB, and
Squid won't care--it will /still/ use about 10MB for each 1GB of
cache_dir. cache_mem is used in addition to this memory.
In some circumstances it may be appropriate to raise the cache_mem in
order to improve performance. I've found that, if you have enough
memory to spare, Squid can gain about 5%-10% improvement in overall
throughput and response times from having a larger cache_mem setting (up
to a certain point, dependent on your workload).
But there is no correlation between cache_dir size and cache_mem size,
and there doesn't need to be.
khiz code wrote:
> well Andre
> maybe u r right
> but as joe would put it the ratio is abt 10MB of ram to 1 GB cache_dir
> guess i want to use a bit more of my 9GB drives of which i am
> presently using 3gb per drive for the cache (3Gb * 4 drives) =12 Gb
> with 100 MB cache_mem
>
> maybe others hv something to say as well
> rgds
> khizcode
>
> --- Andre van Zyl <vanzyla@cedara.kzntl.gov.za> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Increasing your cache_mem from 100 MB to 128MB isn't going to buy you
>>much.
>>In fact, unless you're really pushing your box, you're not really
>>even going
>>to see a major boost from the 100MB as it is.
>>
>>As for your cache size, a general rule of thumb from Duane Wessels is
>>to
>>allow 32 MB of RAM for every 1 GB of disk space. So, using this rule,
>>in
>>order to run a 20 GB cache, you're looking at 640 MB of RAM to be
>>safe, and
>>512 MB RAM can run a cache of about 16 GB or so.
>>
>>HTH,
>>
>>AD.
--
Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
Affordable Web Caching Proxy Appliances
http://www.swelltech.com
Received on Thu Oct 04 2001 - 04:48:37 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:02:36 MST