Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-trafficserver-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-trafficserver-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8839F174B8 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:25:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 93536 invoked by uid 500); 28 Sep 2015 21:25:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-trafficserver-users-archive@trafficserver.apache.org Received: (qmail 93479 invoked by uid 500); 28 Sep 2015 21:25:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@trafficserver.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@trafficserver.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@trafficserver.apache.org Received: (qmail 93466 invoked by uid 99); 28 Sep 2015 21:25:25 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:25:25 +0000 Received: from [192.168.201.3] (c-73-181-14-238.hsd1.co.comcast.net [73.181.14.238]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id C35291A0040; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:25:24 +0000 (UTC) From: Leif Hedstrom Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_15B684C7-21D1-49CF-AE59-1EA39E90CA5F" Message-Id: <8E2D5C41-AF90-46E9-8FA7-BF3D06488BDE@apache.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Subject: Re: persist specific requests only in RAM cache Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:25:23 -0600 References: To: users@trafficserver.apache.org, Phil Sorber In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) --Apple-Mail=_15B684C7-21D1-49CF-AE59-1EA39E90CA5F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Sep 28, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Phil Sorber wrote: >=20 > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:48 PM Jeremy Payne > wrote: > i am going to test this tonight, but are you saying that it's possible = to split the cache based on some transaction condition? >=20 > meaning the below would be stored in ramdisk. >=20 > http://media.domain.com/chunk.ts >=20 > while the below would be stored in a generic(disk) volume. >=20 > http://media.domain.com/image.gif >=20 > again, i have yet to test, but i believe this is all driven by setting = the cache key to use the domain which is mapped to the ramdisk volume. > if this sounds right to you, then it means i am on the right path. >=20 >=20 >=20 > I know for sure you can specify what volume you want something to land = on. Not sure if setting the cache key will do this for you though. Worth = a shot. >=20 > Also, I think was Leif was suggesting was that you turn the ram cache = off in favor of a ram drive, but that will have the side effect of = turning ram cache off for your non-volatile storage as well which I do = not think you want. Right, it depends on what the non-volatile disks are, and what = percentage of traffic goes on them. If they are SSDs, odds are that they = can do just fine without RAM backing. Another option that might be more attractive is to look at e.g. bcache = (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcache = ). =E2=80=94 leif --Apple-Mail=_15B684C7-21D1-49CF-AE59-1EA39E90CA5F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Sep 28, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org> = wrote:

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:48 PM Jeremy Payne <jp557198@gmail.com> = wrote:
i am = going to test this tonight, but are you saying that it's possible to = split the cache based on some transaction condition?

meaning the below would be stored in = ramdisk.

http://media.domain.com/chunk.ts

while the below would be stored in a = generic(disk) volume.

http://media.domain.com/image.gif

again, i have yet to test, but i = believe this is all driven by setting the cache key to use the domain = which is mapped to the ramdisk volume.
if this sounds right to you, then it means i am on the right = path.



I know for sure you can specify what = volume you want something to land on. Not sure if setting the cache key = will do this for you though. Worth a shot.

Also, I think was Leif was suggesting = was that you turn the ram cache off in favor of a ram drive, but that = will have the side effect of turning ram cache off for your non-volatile = storage as well which I do not think you = want.


Right, it depends on what the non-volatile disks = are, and what percentage of traffic goes on them. If they are SSDs, odds = are that they can do just fine without RAM backing.

Another option that might be more attractive is to = look at e.g. bcache (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcache).

=E2=80=94 leif

= --Apple-Mail=_15B684C7-21D1-49CF-AE59-1EA39E90CA5F--