Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> 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
Is there anything to be gained by switching to AUFS in a SCSI RAID 0+1
(real hardware RAID with 64MB cache etc) environment? How long is a
piece of string....I know - just curious from a "theoretical" point of view.
We often see system (i.e., not "nice" or "user") utilisation go up under
heavy Squid load on FreeBSD, but I can't say whether or not this results
in a noticeable performance degradation - we've never measured it and
the users haven't complained (about proxy performance anyway).
-- James
Received on Sun Aug 29 2004 - 20:35:46 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wed Sep 01 2004 - 12:00:03 MDT