Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 02.08.09 01:59, Waitman Gobble wrote:
>
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>
>>> I hope you know what are you doing by configuring that big cache_mem...
>>> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/SquidMemory
>>>
>
>
>> hmmm, i've read that. i don't by the way,
>>
>
> yes, it seems soo..
>
>
yes, it's been several years since i've worked with squid. i'm not
worried about it though, i'll catch up.
>> however, nothing bad has yet happened, mem utilization seems ok, cache
>> hits are up. but it's only been a few days.
>>
>> HTTP: 1166366 Requests, 710613 Hits ( 61%)
>>
>> mem_total: = 4294967296 ( 4096MB) [100%] Logically total memory
>>
>
> so you have 4GiB of RAM and confiured 3GB for squid's mem_cache?
>
> when that get filled up, you either start swapping or get ouf ot RAM and
> your squid will crash...
>
>
i've kept an eye on it, and i agree that it may start paging and/or
crash. but so far, so good.
>> the most disappointing thing is the CPU load on the cache server, it
>> hovers around zero (0). once i noticed it was at .2 (20%) and thought
>> something was about to happen, but it dropped down to zero again pretty
>> quick. it's rather like having a server that doesn't actually do
>> anything, and you want to load it up with some email servers or database
>> or something just so it feels better.
>>
>
> you have low CPU usage and don't like it? Apparently your clients aren't
> using the cache, or there is not that big traffic so the cache would get
> loaded. Or there is another problem and your CPU spends its time waiting for
> i/o...
>
i've built hundreds of servers (but not so many running squid) over the
past 12 years, and when it's running 0 load that actually feels like
waste to me. but at the moment i'm looking at the end result, which is
good. it's not getting so much traffic, just under 1 million page views
a month according to g analytics. i'm considering setting it in front of
some high traffic sites, but only after a while, maybe a month, when i
feel like it's not going to bomb and cause problems. so at the moment,
it's a live experiment. the biggest problem i've struggled with so far
recently is a big problem with the TSO implementation in freebsd 7 (i'm
running 7.2 on machines at the moment), which causes some clients to
pull data (pages, images) at a slow drag, like they're on a 9600 baud
dialup. and it was a tough one to track down, because it seems to affect
a small percentage of clients (guessing maybe 15-20% worldwide - enough
to worry about - but it took me a good long while to actually find a
machine 'in the wild' that behaved this way) - and literally two
machines side by side on the same remote network / LAN would behave
differently, one super fast and the other doggy slow - it has something
to do with the nic and settings on the client. i initially believed this
problem to be isolated to the fx_ drivers {there's an issue in the bug
db} but recently I've had complaints regarding a server with nics using
em drivers. So I'm at the point of *always* killing TSO
waitman
Received on Mon Aug 03 2009 - 04:29:05 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Aug 03 2009 - 12:00:02 MDT