On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Brian Akins wrote:
> Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
> don't care about performance...
>>
>> Actually, cache on xfs mounted with atime doesn't seem to be a performance
>> killer oddly enough... Our frontends had no problems surviving 1k
>> requests/s during the latest mozilla-update-barrage.
>
> 1k requests/second is not really that much... 10k requests/second is more
> what I'm used to. XFS sucks for us as a cache storage. It tends to crock
> under some traffic patterns (reads vs writes). ext3 is actually more
> reliable for us. Reiserfs is interesting, but tends to go haywire from time
> to time.
I think the key difference here is our average file size... We don't
need that many requests/s to bottom out gige normally.
> We clean our cache often because we have a really quick way to find the size
> and remove the oldest expired objects first. Every cache store gets recorded
> in SQLite with info about the object (size, mtime, expire time, url, key,
> etc.). Makes it trivial tow write cron jobs to do cache management.
Yup.
/Nikke
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se | nikke@acc.umu.se
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't force it, use a bigger hammer
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|