Re: Process size..

Doeasn't the FAQ recommend setting cache_mem to be 1/3 of the phisycal RAM
on the machine? I thought there was 1G of RAM on that machine. Then
shouldn't the cache_mem be set to something like 300Mb?

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Scott Hess wrote:

> Better to let the OS handle it. Two problems. One is that the OS might be
> better tuned towards keeping disk blocks in memory than Squid is towards
> keeping pages in memory. [Might not, of course, but the OS is _about_ this
> type of thing, whereas Squid is not.]
>
> The second problem is the killer. You never, ever, ever, ever want Squid
> to swap. Since Squid is a select()-based system, it means that if any
> request requires a page to be swapped in, all requests will wait. With a
> cache_mem of 8M, you're likely to repeatedly touch all of that 8M much more
> frequently than with 500M. The longer a page goes between touches, the
> more likely it is to be swapped out.
>
> Later,
> scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Tony_Melia@Dell.com>
> To: <squid-users@ircache.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 8:01 AM
> Subject: RE: Process size..
>
>
> > Is there a disadvantage to having thsi value higher? The normal reaction
> > is, if you have the extra RAM, use it, or is it better to leave it for
> the
> > OS to use as disk cache?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tony Melia MCSE
> > Dell Server Support Group
> > Bray, Ireland.
> >
> >
> > * +353 1 4772072
> > * Tony_Melia@Dell.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:DJW@bts.co.uk]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 12:30 PM
> > To: 'squid-users@ircache.net'
> > Subject: RE: Process size..
> >
> >
> > > From: Marc-Adrian Napoli [SMTP:marcadrian@cia.com.au]
> > >
> > > cache_mem 500 MB
> > >
> > The normal reccomendation is to leave this at the
> > default 8MB; what's your reasoning in using such
> > a large value?
> >
>
>
Received on Wed Nov 10 1999 - 12:14:54 MST