> I don't think that it's a bad showing at all.
No. It isn't. I respect what you've done, even though Squid is
superior overall, of course :-).
> A 1GB RAM disk can hold about 250K objects of 4KB each. If
> the cache is handling 130 reqs/sec and half of that is
> cacheable, its fill rate will be about 65 req/sec. So, if
> the RAM disk gets wiped, it'll take 250K/65 = 3846 seconds
> to rebuild it. One hour of degraded performance after a
> reboot is possibly significant. If the average object size
> in the RAM disk is smaller, then the rebuild time gets even
> longer.
Here in Austin, that would amount to two hours of shortage a year. I
think I could live with that.
> It's up to the consumer as to whether this is tolerable.
Have to give you that one. I have lived in places where power outages
were alot more frequent. And I'm sure there are applications which
depend on stable cache performance. But most of us would do fine
with the RAMdisk.
-- Jon Kay pushcache.com jkay@pushcache.com http://www.pushcache.com/ (512) 420-9025 Squid consulting 'push done right.'Received on Sat Dec 22 2001 - 19:06:06 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:05:28 MST