Resending this after the last attempt went into the mail server black hole:
Hey Amos I decided I’m not confident enough in 3.5.HEAD, after last time, to go back into production with it. Going to to do some more local testing first. That being said, I now have 3.4.12 in production with optimisations disabled and it seems to be doing fine performance and stability-wise. I only managed to capture one crash with optimisations disabled, so far, but it seemed to have some memory-related corruption, unfortunately. Updates to come over the next few days. On 23 March 2015 at 16:59, Dan Charlesworth <d...@getbusi.com> wrote: > Hey Amos > > I decided I’m not confident enough in 3.5.HEAD, after last time, to go > back into production with it. Going to to do some more local testing first. > > That being said, I now have 3.4.12 in production with optimisations > disabled and it seems to be doing fine performance and stability-wise. I > only managed to capture one crash with optimisations disabled, so far, but > it seemed to have some memory-related corruption, unfortunately. > > More to come tomorrow :-) > > > On 20 Mar 2015, at 6:37 pm, Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > > > > On 20/03/2015 8:34 p.m., Dan Charlesworth wrote: > >> Thanks Amos. > >> > >> > >> I'll put together a build with the upcoming snapshot on Monday, might > even try disabling optimization for it too. > > > > Please do. If you're only getting 40 RPS out of the proxy during the > > test its hard to see how not optimizing the code could be any worse, and > > it will help identifiying some traffic details. > > > > Amos > > > >
_______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
