> >On 02.11 15:42, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> >>It may also be noted that recent experience indicates Squids cache_mem
> >>performs some orders of magnitude worse than expected on large files..
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >ehm, could you please give us some details?
On 03.11 11:20, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> Exponential increase in CPU usage the larger the cached object hit in the
> cache_mem cache.
that is a bug, not a feature, right?
> Or in other words, using a large "maximum_object_size_in_memory" is a bad
> idea if you are scarse on CPU.
I use 256KB... so, IIUC, the problem is not in the big cache_mem but in
big maximum_object_size_in_memory, right?
-- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.Received on Wed Nov 03 2004 - 03:51:51 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wed Dec 01 2004 - 12:00:01 MST