httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: mod_cache performance
Date Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:14:06 GMT
--On Tuesday, August 3, 2004 8:11 AM -0400 Brian Akins <bakins@web.turner.com> 
wrote:

> Under load, squid will always use 100% of the CPU.  This is because it uses
> poll/select.

Ouch.  That sucks.

(But, httpd uses poll - so why does that force 100% CPU usage?)

> RHEL 3 sucks.  Fedora Core 2 would have been a much better choice.  Also,
> did you use poll?  I know a large website that does several dozen hits per
> day using squid :)

Heh.  RHEL3 is the Linux distribution we use within the ASF.  (My local box is 
a mirror of the ASF Linux and FreeBSD setups.)  Fedora Core 2 isn't an option.

Is it worth compiling my own squid then?  (Read that as 'reboot my box to 
FreeBSD and use the squid port.')

> On an OS that supports sendfile, a disk based cache will almost always bury
> a memory based one.

Agreed.

I don't think it's worth putting a lot of effort into mod_mem_cache.  Doing 
zero-copy is just going to scale better than memory caching.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message