Re: [squid-users] No disk cache: cache_mem or TMPFS?

A bit of both is probably the most suitable. But it depends on the
size distribution of your objects. If mainly small objects then
cache_mem is sufficient.

Note: to use more than ca 1-1.5GB of cache_mem you need to build Squid
as a 64 bit application. Using tmpfs does not have such limitations
for 32 bit applications from what I know.

Regards
Henrik

On Wednesday 19 February 2003 23.52, Omer Shenker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm preparing to running Squid 2.5 as an HTTP accelerator on a
> Solaris 8 machine with lots of free memory but a bottleneck in disk
> IO. Because I don't want Squid's disk IO needs to preempt those of
> PostgreSQL, I'd like to avoid using a disk cache at all. (The
> machine is rebooted so infrequently that I don't care about the
> lack of permanence of a memory-only cache.)
>
> My question is this: is it better to just increase the cache_mem
> option to the amount of memory I'd like Squid to use, or should I
> use TMPFS (SunOS's memory filesystem) as a cache_dir with diskd?
> The way I see it, if I went with TMPFS I'd want to turn off
> cache_mem completely, otherwise I'd end up with objects cached in
> memory twice. Or am I foolish to even consider doing this at all?
>
> (SunOS admins: I'm aware that I have to make sure /tmp doesn't use
> up all of TMPFS and that all TMPFS mounts compete for the same
> memory space by default.)
>
> Unloading services to a different machine is not really an option,
> nor is buying another drive.
>
> Thanks,
Received on Wed Feb 19 2003 - 16:57:35 MST