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 C4C3C184EB for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 61331 invoked by uid 500); 21 Mar 2016 18:19:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-trafficserver-users-archive@trafficserver.apache.org Received: (qmail 61266 invoked by uid 500); 21 Mar 2016 18:19:27 -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 61256 invoked by uid 99); 21 Mar 2016 18:19:27 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:19:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 14DE2C021D for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:19:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.668 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.668 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, KAM_HTMLNOISE=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, REPTO_QUOTE_YAHOO=0.49, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f-8uL0iz4jVO for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:19:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nm8-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm8-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.213.95]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id B88B05F39A for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:19:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1458584359; bh=ir7Oz31UsvFtP1iTL5TBSHaePgLoaKPoS4+xw0JFOaU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=qw+mvlixQxIdIPtvrBq25Ot23Fxkvccv8Vtnsk0OLJG8C6YUYdXy+/bn167Wqw9JUcJAP/kqvVULhAgPRTfx1WybSA/NLwOin7o67KLrjEQSUI9s5ecgpZvTIB5uCqH1C2siuHyZhRpBmh6Pv5K7eg8Z2SDB/R/5XpSH4VNKV2W3YmX5davV9GRZLK4PL4JvwH1uPVFMmSidN2MMbFDtfSuRS8VxGa32hkQF/+0URKaLwGwF6uVQmOr4nD5X8LH+6S9G+mNtpTEqkinRP23xRvX8OLFVPuVWy7Pf6+bh9K9X8BmdXjqlVjCE2P/KCcdu2F07yaayR68+NaBva/1N1g== Received: from [98.139.170.179] by nm8.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Mar 2016 18:19:19 -0000 Received: from [68.142.230.73] by tm22.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Mar 2016 18:19:18 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp230.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Mar 2016 18:19:18 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 939709.26587.bm@smtp230.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: c_E6qlcVM1kIAob6nce2kxgQFobTOwYvqqNDdZ24dUd8f_L REQdD_WlfT2R5NdQPDQjWvwf7R.VT0eNNPon8fwpNCh0_LPufVK1ivIK8mzZ 4Eg5BrXyCfSs_.qXnqiODNuXQaT47svVE9qpyS6Vo9R2VJ90WaNZvkd8ORkj S0qstBwvmlPJQ7BLRmgFlnEer63SvQSL.bJkoPZLdaINQZNULJLHsAZCLVDi jCsT4zHSn2LaRX4_2sksl8Aw43.vJcihOFsir29KNLp4PWA0OnC7bM.v238T R_Xo2ivXdkqnJZu4.HARE1sK3BkV5Cr5xYfUKkOBsBOs3D1mMEcpZvKcw6Mv NZHqkUqR7YS58y1OlE2H7foiD8gtGMhqKsoplkJTJGZgF2P3f41p48xKuCcA WJd3QM7UmiyamWYhnyUoMD0dJaIOVj02sRCmiWbrnvmFkRsEWTaBPosP8grq G7_Vj_.FUkt03HidN2EMQRDxw7.yZu7SMMIE27oB1ifyJnsABBS9dUGgxWTc KTpJZ0Zk0CFrpzGf3Nsf3ZzFsjS2xeQ-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: eeYRHRyswBDC7nhOUziSE0OfIL4wceY- From: "Muhammad Faisal" To: "Leif Hedstrom" , users@trafficserver.apache.org Subject: Re: Different Cache Disk for different size of objects Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:19:10 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: "Muhammad Faisal" User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.24928.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MB0B0403F7-17C6-4045-91EC-C7DFC0535D9B" --------=_MB0B0403F7-17C6-4045-91EC-C7DFC0535D9B Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OK. But this feature can be added right? May be in future releases. It=20 can improve caching performance by avoiding seek time of disks which=20 increase over the period of time with high disk WR. -- Regards, Faisal. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Leif Hedstrom" To: users@trafficserver.apache.org; "Muhammad Faisal"=20 Sent: 3/21/2016 9:52:35 PM Subject: Re: Different Cache Disk for different size of objects > >>On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:35 AM, Muhammad Faisal =20 >>wrote: >> >>Hi, >>Is this possible to allocate a different disk for different object=20 >>sizes? Below is the scenario I'm trying to implement: >> >>Object size <1MB -----> SSD >>Object Size > 1MB ----> HDD >> >>This will improve Caching performance as smaller objects will be=20 >>served from SSD while larger objects will reside on the HDD. > > >No, not at this point. Part of the issue is that we select =E2=80=9Cstorag= e=E2=80=9D=20 >before going to origin, so you don=E2=80=99t know what the size is going= to be=20 >before you get the response. And at that point, you (currently) can=E2=80= =99t=20 >move to a different storage / volume. But @amc would know best. > >=E2=80=94 leif > > --------=_MB0B0403F7-17C6-4045-91EC-C7DFC0535D9B Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
OK. But this feature can be added right? May be in future releases.= It can improve caching performance by avoiding seek time of disks = which increase over the period of time with high disk WR.
--
Regards,
Faisal.
 
 
 
------ Original Message ------
From: "Leif Hedstrom" <zwoop@ap= ache.org>
Sent: 3/21/2016 9:52:35 PM
Subject: Re: Different Cache Disk for different size of objects
 

On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:35 AM, Muhammad Faisal <faisalusuf@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi,
Is this possible to allocate a different disk= for different object sizes? Below is the scenario I'm trying to imple= ment:
 
Object size <1MB -----> SSD 
Object Size > 1MB ----> HDD
 
This will improve Caching performance as smalle= r objects will be served from SSD while larger objects will reside on the= HDD.


No, not at this point. Part of the issue is that we select =E2=80=9C= storage=E2=80=9D before going to origin, so you don=E2=80=99t know what = the size is going to be before you get the response. And at that point, = you (currently) can=E2=80=99t move to a different storage / volume. But = @amc would know best.

=E2=80=94 leif


--------=_MB0B0403F7-17C6-4045-91EC-C7DFC0535D9B--