Matt wrote:
> Is anyone out there running Squid with "aufs" type under heavy load with a
> single IDE drive? If so what kind of stabillity does it seem to have? How
> does performance compare under heavy load between "aufs" vs. "ufs" on a
> single IDE drive system?
It's fine on Linux, and Solaris. We've been running it on countless
systems all over the world for five years.
> I was told "aufs" was not as stable as "ufs" and should not be used in a
> production environment.
Who told you that?
Henrik has just stated that it is not unstable to his knowledge, and he
has better Squid knowledge than just about anyone in the world. A
search of the Squid lists will reveal several of the Squid developers
debunking that myth on several occasions throughout the years. What do
you need us to say for you to believe it?
> Thanks.
>
> Matt
>
>
>>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Matt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The "aufs" cache_dir type automatically tries to do this when the
>
> harddrive
>
>>>>I/O load is too high.
>>>
>>>Is "aufs" type less stable then "ufs"?
>>
>>Not that I know of.
>>
>>Regards
>>Henrik
>
>
>
Received on Sun Aug 29 2004 - 19:49:41 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wed Sep 01 2004 - 12:00:03 MDT