Re: [squid-users] New squid machines.

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 06:28:33PM +0200, Chemolli Francesco (USI) wrote:
> > RAM is related to disk space - essentially allow around 10MB per GB of
> > cache disk, plus overheads. Generally there's little point
> > in going for
>
> Plus a little of cache_mem, will you? :)
 
Of course - I included this in "overheads" :-) I've currently got this set
to a fairly generous 256MB, though as I'm now experimenting with a caching
name daemon on the boxes I'm probably going to have to lower that somewhat
to avoid memory problems. I've found VM somewhat problematic on 2.4
kernels, even with swap > 2xRAM, and am running the machines with no swap
enabled.

> CPU matters :(
> Maybe an Usparc3 would compare better, AND have a better
> I/O architecture.
 
It might well do (UltraSparc 3 wasn't available when we bought those
boxes), but this bumps up the cost further - those Ultras weren't cheap in
the first place. In terms of "bangs per buck" the Intel hardware would
seem to be well ahead.

-- 
--------------- Robin Stevens  <robin.stevens@oucs.ox.ac.uk> -----------------
Oxford University Computing Services ----------- Web: http://www.cynic.org.uk/
------- (+44)(0)1865: 273212 (work) 273275 (fax)  Mobile: 07776 235326 -------