Re: [squid-users] high memory usage (squid 3.2.0)

Marcello Romani wrote:
> Il 10/04/2013 13:59, Mr Dash Four ha scritto:
>>
>>
>> Marcello Romani wrote:
>>> Il 09/04/2013 19:33, Mr Dash Four ha scritto:
>>> > [snip]
>>>> if the maximum_object_size_in_memory is reduced,
>>>> then I suppose squid's memory footprint will have to go down too,
>>>> which
>>>> makes the cache_mem option a bit useless.
>>>
>>> I think will just store more objects in RAM.
>> I am sorry, but I don't understand that logic.
>>
>> If I set cache_mem (which is supposed to be the limit of ram squid is
>> going to use for caching), then the maximum_object_size_in_memory should
>> be irrelevant. The *number* of objects to be placed in memory should
>> depend on cache_mem, not the other way around.
>
> You're wrong.
> Each object that squid puts into cache_mem can have a different size.
> Thus the number of objects stored in cache_mem will vary over time
> depending on the traffic and selection algorithms.
I don't see how I am wrong in what I've posted above. I am not saying
that the number of objects placed in ram will be constant, all I am
saying is that the total memory used of all objects placed in ram should
not be 6 times the cache_mem value I've specified in my configuration
file - that is simply wrong, no matter how you twist it.

>> What currently seems to happen is that cache_mem is completely ignored
>> and squid is trying to shove up as many objects into my ram as possible,
>> to the point where nothing else on that machine is able to function
>> nominally. This is like putting cart in front of the horse - ridiculous!
>
> As stated elsewhere, previous versions of squid had memory leaks. That
> doesn't mean squid is _designed_ to put as many objects in ram as
> possible.
Well, as I indicated previously, my cache_mem is 200MB. Current memory
usage of squid was 1.3GB - more than 6 times what I have indicated. That
is not a simple memory "leak" - that is one hell of a raging torrent if
you ask me!

> Also, the cache_mem value must not be confused with a hard limit on
> total squid memory usage (which AFAIK cannot be set). For example
> there's also the memory used to manage the on-disk cache (10MB per GB
> IIRC - google it for a reliable answer).
Even if we account for that, I don't see why squid should be occupying 6
times more memory from what I restricted it to use.
Received on Wed Apr 10 2013 - 15:22:29 MDT