Re: [squid-users] 3.5.6 still get if-cached errors sourced from a sibling.

On 16/07/2015 11:38 a.m., Tory M Blue wrote: > Was hoping this was fixed in 3.5.6 > > The following error was encountered while trying to retrieve the URL: > http://view-dev.eng.domain.net/rimfire/adm/search? > > > *Valid document was

Re: [squid-users] Blocked DNS request from IDS causes Squid to not work

On 16/07/2015 9:57 a.m., markme wrote: > I've been running Squid 3.3.8 on CentOS 7 for a few months now and every now > and then I will get a "Suspicious .pw DNS query" alert from my IDS which was > caused by Squid and it will be blocked. When this happens most clients start > to get a 503 error or

[squid-users] 3.5.6 still get if-cached errors sourced from a sibling.

Was hoping this was fixed in 3.5.6 The following error was encountered while trying to retrieve the URL: http://view-dev.eng.domain.net/rimfire/adm/search? *Valid document was not found in the cache and only-if-cached directive was spe

[squid-users] Blocked DNS request from IDS causes Squid to not work

I've been running Squid 3.3.8 on CentOS 7 for a few months now and every now and then I will get a "Suspicious .pw DNS query" alert from my IDS which was caused by Squid and it will be blocked. When this happens most clients start to get a 503 error or NONE_ABORTED/000 in the access log and they ca

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I think, it's enough datacenter class HDD. Also I use it with mirror option for speed and reliability in my setup. This is comprehensive enough to enterprise-level proxy. ;) Of course, I know you know the separation between two hardware clauses.

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

On 15/07/2015 16:36, Yuri Voinov wrote: SSD as squid cache?! You are really rich, man! Please do separate two things Enterprise level SSD and Desktop SSD. They are different by nature and they do not tend to "break" easily. They do have different life spans and Enterprise grade HDDs tend to be

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

On 07/15/2015 11:59 AM, Yuri Voinov wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Amos, I think, auds queue must be buffered more better and smoother. On some OS (I've tested) peak loads leads performance degradation. Periodically. That is why I'm not using aufs. This makes sense

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> > Fred, > > Not sure we'll have free time for testing the previous 3.4, we now > have > dozens of boxes to manually upgrade to the 3.5.6... > yes, we do use the original squid 3.5.6 package, no build mix here. > Ok I will, It would be interesting to understand what happen and if there is so

Re: [squid-users] ufdbGuard cannot check ssl certs

Hi Stan, ufdbGuard probably logs more error messages before "Cannot perform mandatory check of SSL certificates" What are they ? ufdbGuard then calls abort() which causes a core dump since it found something terribly wrong. Please reply to me or the ufdbGuard list at http://sourceforge.net/p

Re: [squid-users] Compiling squid with 'url_rewrite' support?

I understand that the pricing option is only for the URLFilter database they maintain. The ufdbGuard itself is free open source. You can use other databases if you convert them to the ufdbGuard format using ufdbConvert On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Michael Monette wrote: > Spoke to soon, the

[squid-users] ufdbGuard cannot check ssl certs

Hi all. I've seen some folks asking questions about ufdbGuard and squidGuard here, so I thought I would give it a try, too. I am trying to integrate ufdbGuard to replace a working install of squidGuard on our Smoothwall Express firewall distro with Squid 3.5.5. Hopefully, if I can get it working,

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

On 16/07/2015 2:59 a.m., Yuri Voinov wrote: > > Amos, > > I think, auds queue must be buffered more better and smoother. On some > OS (I've tested) peak loads leads performance degradation. Periodically. > Buffering and I/O scheduling is all done by the system disk controller AFAICT. Squid is j

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

On 07/15/2015 11:39 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: On 16/07/2015 1:51 a.m., Stakres wrote: Hi Fred, tests from my side: DISKD with TCP_HIT objects: 564KB/s with wget, the same url you have tested. AUFS with TCP_HITS objects: 47.8M/s, same wget, same squid, same url, same all. Wget with AUFS: Length

Re: [squid-users] Compiling squid with 'url_rewrite' support?

Spoke to soon, there is a free one. Going to give it a shot, thanks again. - Original Message - From: "Michael Monette" To: "Michael Monette" Cc: "Yuri Voinov" , "squid-users" Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:17:08 AM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Compiling squid with 'url_rewrite' suppo

Re: [squid-users] Compiling squid with 'url_rewrite' support?

I love how they say ufdbguard is Free and Open Source...followed by a pricing option. - Original Message - From: "Michael Monette" To: "Yuri Voinov" Cc: "squid-users" Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:15:07 AM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Compiling squid with 'url_rewrite' support? Co

Re: [squid-users] Compiling squid with 'url_rewrite' support?

Cool! I'm just beginning to explore these things, so I am glad I asked the question. I am going to check out ufbdguard now. Thank you all - Original Message - From: "Yuri Voinov" To: "squid-users" Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:00:55 AM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Compiling squid

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Fred, Not sure we'll have free time for testing the previous 3.4, we now have dozens of boxes to manually upgrade to the 3.5.6... yes, we do use the original squid 3.5.6 package, no build mix here. Fred -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/AUFS-v

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 15.07.15 20:45, Amos Jeffries пишет: > On 16/07/2015 2:27 a.m., FredB wrote: >> >>> At this moment your user got partially loaded web page. >>> >> >> Yes bad experience for me, I guess I reach some limitations about aufs, > > That is the SWAP

Re: [squid-users] Compiling squid with 'url_rewrite' support?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Confirm. ufdbguard is great redirector. It has a bit small problem with some reporting tools (like SARG), but nothing important. 15.07.15 20:57, Amos Jeffries пишет: > On 16/07/2015 2:42 a.m., Michael Monette wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This might be

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Amos, I think, auds queue must be buffered more better and smoother. On some OS (I've tested) peak loads leads performance degradation. Periodically. That is why I'm not using aufs. 15.07.15 20:39, Amos Jeffries пишет: > On 16/07/2015 1:51 a.m.,

Re: [squid-users] Compiling squid with 'url_rewrite' support?

On 16/07/2015 2:42 a.m., Michael Monette wrote: > Hello, > > This might be a stupid question.. > > I started looking at squidGuard. Looks pretty straight forward and > fairly easy to implement it but for some reason I could not get it to > actually work, the blacklists were still being bypassed.

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> > Fred, > We have upgraded 4 big ISPs to the latest 3.5.6 in AUFS, feedbacks > are so > good. I can tell you clients see a big (positive) change here. > We use the same settings in the squid.conf but AUFS instead DISKD, > the > difference is crazy... > > In the past we moved to the Diskd due t

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

On 16/07/2015 2:27 a.m., FredB wrote: > >> At this moment your user got partially loaded web page. >> > > Yes bad experience for me, I guess I reach some limitations about aufs, That is the SWAPFAIL part of SWAPFAIL_MISS. User should have simply gitten a MISS fetched from the network. Maybe

[squid-users] Compiling squid with 'url_rewrite' support?

Hello, This might be a stupid question.. I started looking at squidGuard. Looks pretty straight forward and fairly easy to implement it but for some reason I could not get it to actually work, the blacklists were still being bypassed. I was using Squid-3.5.4 from source because I need the ssl:

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

On 16/07/2015 1:51 a.m., Stakres wrote: > Hi Fred, > tests from my side: > DISKD with TCP_HIT objects: 564KB/s with wget, the same url you have tested. > AUFS with TCP_HITS objects: 47.8M/s, same wget, same squid, same url, same > all. > > Wget with AUFS: > Length: 10095849 (9.6M) [application/x-m

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Fred, We have upgraded 4 big ISPs to the latest 3.5.6 in AUFS, feedbacks are so good. I can tell you clients see a big (positive) change here. We use the same settings in the squid.conf but AUFS instead DISKD, the difference is crazy... In the past we moved to the Diskd due to too many errors in A

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > At this moment your user got partially loaded web page. > Yes bad experience for me, I guess I reach some limitations about aufs, fortunately I have no problem with diskd but I like to increase the performances. I will (re)test

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > This test means nothing. Only very approximate overall IO performance > for IO subsystem. > Not nothing I don't agree, it's not sufficiently precise to indicate where the problem is, ok with that, but if you change only diskd by aufs you

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 At this moment your user got partially loaded web page. 15.07.15 20:06, FredB пишет: > >> >> All, >> We have switched some ISPs from DISKD to AUFS this morning, the >> "queue >> congestion" appears at the begining then disappears from the >> c

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> > All, > We have switched some ISPs from DISKD to AUFS this morning, the > "queue > congestion" appears at the begining then disappears from the > cache.log. For > how long, nobody knows... > Yes me too, but after a while I had 2015/07/15 13:36:07 kid1| DiskThreadsDiskFile::openDone: (2) No

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Just remember: performance tuning is complex problem, especially for high load installations. And must be solved as complex. 15.07.15 19:58, FredB пишет: > > >> Objet: Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS >> >> Hi Fred, >> tests from my side: >> DISKD

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 And note this: TCP_HIT generally flows with other network traffic. We don't know, how it handles during peak hours in network equipment, right? To be sure, we must prioritizing TCP_HITS on network level, well? 15.07.15 19:58, FredB пишет: > > >>

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 This test means nothing. Only very approximate overall IO performance for IO subsystem. 15.07.15 19:58, FredB пишет: > > >> Objet: Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS >> >> Hi Fred, >> tests from my side: >> DISKD with TCP_HIT objects: 564KB/s with w

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I think, that using datacenter (not consumer) class HDD is more preferrable than SSD. Cache content lost means cached traffic and money loss. And this is not acceptable for big caches. 15.07.15 19:57, FredB пишет: > >> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED ME

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> Objet: Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS > > Hi Fred, > tests from my side: > DISKD with TCP_HIT objects: 564KB/s with wget, the same url you have > tested. > AUFS with TCP_HITS objects: 47.8M/s, same wget, same squid, same url, > same > all. > > Wget with AUFS: > Length: 10095849 (9.6M) [appl

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > It depends from your squid settings (memory cache size, etc), your OS > (as expected), your fs. > > My installation works 4 years 24x7 with shipped HDD. > Yes, in my case it depends of number of read/write by second, I know that I of

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 queue congestion means IO bottleneck. This will appears on regular basis. With client delays, of course. 15.07.15 19:51, Stakres пишет: > Hi Fred, > tests from my side: > DISKD with TCP_HIT objects: 564KB/s with wget, the same url you have tested

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Hi Fred, tests from my side: DISKD with TCP_HIT objects: 564KB/s with wget, the same url you have tested. AUFS with TCP_HITS objects: 47.8M/s, same wget, same squid, same url, same all. Wget with AUFS: Length: 10095849 (9.6M) [application/x-msdos-program] Saving to: `youtube_downloader_hd_setup-2.

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Look: root @ cthulhu / # zpool status data pool: data state: ONLINE scan: scrub repaired 0 in 1h49m with 0 errors on Sat Jul 11 07:49:01 2015 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM data ONLINE 0 0

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 It depends from your squid settings (memory cache size, etc), your OS (as expected), your fs. My installation works 4 years 24x7 with shipped HDD. 15.07.15 19:41, FredB пишет: > I agree, but what about the life time ? I change every two years (m

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Speaking in essence: Performance depends strongly on the process model used by the operating system, from settings, the hardware configuration and the actual configuration of the operating system. And it can not be considered in isolation from all

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

I agree, but what about the life time ? I change every two years (max 3) my sata drives ___ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 SSD as squid cache?! You are really rich, man! 15.07.15 19:33, Eliezer Croitoru пишет: > Just adding something to the subject. > HDD vs SSD speeds are quite something. > I have tried to test the benefits of a SSD in the past and in many cases it w

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Just adding something to the subject. HDD vs SSD speeds are quite something. I have tried to test the benefits of a SSD in the past and in many cases it was a great addition of speed. Eliezer On 15/07/2015 15:27, Stakres wrote: Amos, We're using the latest 3.5.6 build, and we have not yet pl

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Sorry, I forgot a real life test time wget http://ec.ccm2.net/www.commentcamarche.net/download/files/youtube_downloader_hd_setup-2.9.9.23.exe -v --2015-07-15 15:22:03-- http://ec.ccm2.net/www.commentcamarche.net/download/files/youtube_downloader_hd_setup-2.9.9.23.exe Connexion vers x.x.x.x:312

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Here is my stats: client_http.all_median_svc_time = 0.097357 seconds client_http.miss_median_svc_time = 0.097357 seconds client_http.nm_median_svc_time = 0.00 seconds client_http.nh_median_svc_time = 0.00 seconds client_http.hit_median_svc

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> > Did you check the TCP_HIT response times with the Diskd ? Yes 192.x.x.x - fred [15/Jul/2015:14:30:27 +0200] "GET http://ec.ccm2.net/www.commentcamarche.net/download/files/youtube_downloader_hd_setup-2.9.9.23.exe HTTP/1.0" 200 10096376 TCP_HIT:HIER_NONE "Wget/1.13.4 (linux-gnu)" 192.x.x.x

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 AFAIK, diskd speed depends from backend fs (OS level). I use diskd over zfs with some tunables and has acceptable response time, approx 0.1 sec. 15.07.15 18:52, Stakres пишет: > Fred, > (Guys, 2 french Fred here, but not the sames) > > Did you c

Re: [squid-users] Which DNS to use

I have around 25 client machines, so not quite "home" sized, but not big either. I did try both the routers IP address and the ISP's advertised name servers. Speed-wise they seemed about the same. I'm on a DSL connection which says its link speed is 16Mbit down and 1Mbit up. MarkJ - Origi

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Fred, (Guys, 2 french Fred here, but not the sames) Did you check the TCP_HIT response times with the Diskd ? During our tests, we have seen than it's sometime better to download the object from internet again instead using the one from the cache, we got better response times... Fred -- View

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> > Hi Fred, > > We did the tests with 1 hard disk only (for testing), we used 150 > req/sec, > load was around 0.7-0.8 > Naaa, response times are crazy in DISKD/TCP_HIT (20+ sec instead 0.5 > sec in > AUFS) but it concerns TCP_HIT only, the other flags are corrects in > DISKD. > > I'll try t

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Amos, We're using the latest 3.5.6 build, and we have not yet planed new tests with the Rock. We were a bit disapointed with so we're not really "hot" to spend time in testing it. We're ok with the Diskd mode, except with the TCP_HIT objects (50+ times slower). We did tests on a basic server, i3

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Hi Fred, We did the tests with 1 hard disk only (for testing), we used 150 req/sec, load was around 0.7-0.8 Naaa, response times are crazy in DISKD/TCP_HIT (20+ sec instead 0.5 sec in AUFS) but it concerns TCP_HIT only, the other flags are corrects in DISKD. I'll try the "noatime"... Fred --

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Hi Fred, We did the tests with 1 hard disk only (for testing), we used 150 req/sec, load was around 0.7-0.8 Naaa, response times are crazy in DISKD/TCP_HIT (20+ sec instead 0.5 sec in AUFS) but it concerns TCP_HIT only, the other flags are corrects in DISKD. I'll try the "noatime"... Fred --

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

On 15/07/2015 11:41 p.m., Stakres wrote: > Hi Amos, > > Sorry but the Rock mode is totaly bugged, the worst mode to use here. > We did tons of tests, small, medium and big rock cache, all crash process > after process. We have definitively abandonned the Rock mode while it'll be > the same results

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

sults. > > So, it seems we'll have to switch all boxes from diskd to aufs, but I > think > we could survive > Anyway, we liked the diskd because we see good stability, but the > HITed > objects are really too slow, all my clients are complaining, that's > why we > did many tests yesterday and we f

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Fred, Welcome to the club... -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/AUFS-vs-DISKS-tp4672209p4672227.html Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ squid-users mailing list squid-

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Hi Amos, Sorry but the Rock mode is totaly bugged, the worst mode to use here. We did tons of tests, small, medium and big rock cache, all crash process after process. We have definitively abandonned the Rock mode while it'll be the same results. So, it seems we'll have to switch all boxes from d

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> I'm making a test just now > > Diskd, 600 r/s, squid CPU usage = 40 %, load average 1, no warning in > cache/kernel/syslog logs > Aufs, 600 r/s, squid CPU usage = 45 %, load average 3, many 'Queue > congestion' > > And no gain for hits % of all requests and bytes sent from squid > cache > > S

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> Just use fast separate physical devices on separate controllers - and > all will be ok without any delays. > Of course, with this kind of load without separate disks Squid dies after some minutes :) I'm using separates drives with noatime file system and I never found a way to (completely)

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

On 15/07/2015 6:56 p.m., Stakres wrote: > Hi All, > > I face a weird issue regarding DISKS cache-dir model and I would like to > have your expertise here > > Here is the result of a cache object with an AUFS cache_dir: > 1436916227.603462 192.168.1.88 00:0c:29:6e:2c:99 TCP_HIT/200 10486356 >

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 15.07.15 17:18, FredB пишет: > >> Your are right fred, >> >> It is is a difficult deal for us too... >> >> aufs -> good speed but more troubles ( assertion failed, "empty()", >> HTTP >> reply without date unstable rock system ) and must deal

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

> Your are right fred, > > It is is a difficult deal for us too... > > aufs -> good speed but more troubles ( assertion failed, "empty()", > HTTP > reply without date unstable rock system ) and must deal with > squid > crashes ( watchdog) You mean "rock store" or aufs ? For me aufs seems

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Your are right fred, It is is a difficult deal for us too... aufs -> good speed but more troubles ( assertion failed, "empty()", HTTP reply without date unstable rock system ) and must deal with squid crashes ( watchdog) diskd -> more stable but slower... Le 15/07/2015 12:46, FredB a

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Just a little word about aufs, just for information, to avoid squidaio_queue_request: WARNING - Queue congestion squidaio_queue_request: WARNING - Queue congestion squidaio_queue_request: WARNING - Queue congestion squidaio_queue_request: WARNING - Queue congestion I had increase this value (so

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

On 15/07/2015 9:59 p.m., Stakres wrote: > Yury, > > you mean that having the DISKD 52 times slower then AUFS with linux OS is > normal ? > I cannot believe that, incredible ! > > I could understand the double or the triple, but here we're speaking about > 50+ times... Yes. Exactly so. The diff

[squid-users] Squid transparent proxy - IP and MAC address spoofed (unchanged)

Hi all, Is it possible to spoof both IP and MAC addres of the http packets with the squid? With squid 3.3. I managed to spoof IP source address to be the client's one, but mac address is still being changed. (This manual wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/Tproxy4 ) Did someone manage to do something

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Also - did you read this: http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/DiskDaemon ? Your seen, for which OS this feature designed? ;) 15.07.15 15:59, Stakres пишет: > Yury, > > you mean that having the DISKD 52 times slower then AUFS with linux OS is >

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Are you surprised that the IO modules may be specific for different operating systems? :) 15.07.15 15:59, Stakres пишет: > Yury, > > you mean that having the DISKD 52 times slower then AUFS with linux OS is > normal ? > I cannot believe that, inc

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Yury, you mean that having the DISKD 52 times slower then AUFS with linux OS is normal ? I cannot believe that, incredible ! I could understand the double or the triple, but here we're speaking about 50+ times... Fred. -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 DIskd works perfectly on some OS'es, like Solaris, BSD. Linux-based OS, AFAIK, works with diskd so slow. And AUFS is the best choise in this case. Depending system settings, of course. AFAIK, on some OS (like.h. Windows) "aufs" leads

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Yuri, Debian 7 or 8, tested on both... Bye Fred -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/AUFS-vs-DISKS-tp4672209p4672212.html Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ squid-users

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 The key question: which OS using? 15.07.15 12:56, Stakres пишет: > Hi All, > > I face a weird issue regarding DISKS cache-dir model and I would like to > have your expertise here > > Here is the result of a cache object with an AUFS cache_dir: > 1

Re: [squid-users] AUFS vs. DISKS

Very Interesting, I would add that I wonder which storage scheme in 2015 should we use to give better performance with recent hardware and high load (more than 800 r/s) ? Have any recent benchmark somewhere ? In my case I'm using diskd with some system tuning, noatime, separate disks for cache