Re: [squid-users] Unable to increase filedescriptor limit -- tried all things

The warning, i refering was coming in the cache.log of
squid.

epoll is enabled,and FD value is now set as 8192.
Should it be fine for large sites like 200-300 users
or i have to increase it more. I have chosen 8192 for
the FD limit because it is the default value given in
ebuild of squid.

--- Gonzalo Arana <gonzalo.arana@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 25, 2008 2:58 AM, bijayant kumar
> <bijayant4u@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi Arana,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply. As you are suggesting in
> your
> > reply that incresing the filedescriptor can be
> > dangerous. Is there any other way to get rid of
> this
> > warning, because this warning makes browsing dead
>
> by "the warning" you mean the "Maximum
> filedescriptors set to 131072"
> message on ./configure output? That's not a
> warning, just
> an informative message.
>
> > slow,and the box is deployed at our client place.
> I
> > have to do things fast. If you have any other
> > suggestion besides the increasing file descriptor
> > please suggest me.
>
> Setting the FD limit to a ridiculous high value
> (like 131072)
> is a bit dangerous if you are using select or poll
> (the default
> connection polling schemes), because the kernel has
> to
> spend too many time checking each FD state on each
> squid
> main loop.
>
> If you are using epoll on Linux that danger
> dissapears, as CPU
> usage becomes rather independent on the number of
> open FDs.
> epoll is enabled by adding --enable-epoll in
> ./configure args.
>
> So, setting max_fd to a really high value and using
> epoll
> makes squid much more scalable.
>
> HTH,
>
> --
> Gonzalo A. Arana
>

Bijayant Kumar

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Received on Sat Jan 26 2008 - 09:39:26 MST