Re: [squid-users] Squid performance issue [again]

Hello,

        If you have unlimited physical RAM -- then why not use a RAM disk for cache ?
Personally I think that cache is over rated. There is NO point is having over
15-20 MB of cache per-person anyways.

Here I have given squid a 150MB RAM disk to store it's cache on -- so it the box
crashed my cache is gone -- but then if the box crashed I have bigger problems.

Michael.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 08:17:19 +0000
"Lizzy Dizzy" <lizzy_99@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I understand that the size of the physical RAM has to be proportional to the
> total harddisk cache size. Supposing I have
>
> unlimited physical RAM,
>
>
> 1) What is the recommended size of 1 physical harddisk for each server (each
> server can have sda, sdb etc...). The reason I
>
> am asking this is that I am concern that the bigger a disk is, the longer
> squid needs to get an object out of it.
>
> I am currently using a U320 SCSI disk of 10KRPM, size 73GB. It is being
> partitioned into 4 smaller partition of 17GB each.
>
> Performace is within expectation, but I am wondering if reparttioning it
> into smaller sizes would give better yield. On the
>
> other hand, the disk has a fixed number of head, so would it even help?
>
> 2) In term of performance only, is a 100GB harddisk better (partitioned into
> 5 20GB partitioned) or 5 20GB harddisks better.
>
>
> Thanks
> Liz
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find it on the web with MSN Search. http://search.msn.com.sg/
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Michael Gale
Network Administrator
Utilitran Corporation