Re: [squid-users] Re: Extremely Low Request Hit Ratio!

Hello babajaga, Thanks a lot your help! I understand from what you said that squid does not know in which cache_dir a requested object may be located in (it does not search for that object in all the cache_dir's) and that may result in the same object stored in all cache-dir's resulting in lower hit ratio, did I get it right? Best regards, Firas ----- Original Message ----- From: babajaga <augustus_meyer@yahoo.de> To: squid-users@squid-cache.org Cc: Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 4:30 PM Subject: [squid-users] Re: Extremely Low Request Hit Ratio! My suspicion is some problem here: store_dir_select_algorithm least-load # cache_dir aufs /mnt/cachedrive1 1342177 128 512 cache_dir aufs /mnt/cachedrive2 1426227 128 512 cache_dir aufs /mnt/cachedrive3 1426227 128 512 cache_dir aufs /mnt/cachedrive4 1426227 128 512 cache_dir aufs /mnt/cachedrive5 427008 128 256 Not knowing internal processing within squid in this scenario, but theoritically there MIGHT be the risk, having the same object cached up to 4 times, because all cache_dir have equal storage properties. Which reduces overall sum of cachable objects significantly. And MIGHT lead to unnecessary purge of cached objects, in case a cache_dir almost full. So I would either use just one large cache_dir (which might then run into the limit regarding max. number of cachable objects in one dir 2**24) or (better solution) set disjunct limits on the size of cachable objects for the various cache_dir, using cache_dir aufs /mnt/cachedrive2 1426227 128 512 min-size=xxxx  max-size=xxxx And move these lines minimum_object_size 16 KB maximum_object_size 512 MB on top of this one: maximum_object_size_in_memory 300 KB -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/Extremely-Low-Request-Hit-Ratio-tp4661495p4661504.html Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Received on Sat Aug 10 2013 - 00:24:37 MDT