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 0D4E318224 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 23858 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2015 16:22:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-trafficserver-users-archive@trafficserver.apache.org Received: (qmail 23785 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2015 16:22:01 -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 23770 invoked by uid 99); 7 Oct 2015 16:22:01 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:22:01 +0000 Received: from [17.115.109.229] (unknown [17.115.109.229]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 8094F1A003F for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:22:01 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3096.1\)) Subject: Re: Cache to RAM before Disk From: James Peach In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:22:00 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <51D8E6FF-C535-433D-83EF-7DD1C3A2E089@apache.org> References: To: users@trafficserver.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.1) > On Oct 6, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Brian Geffon wrote: >=20 > One easy solution for this would be a RAMFS, that's personally the = only way that I know of. Anyone else? If you did that, it would never hit disk though. Mohd, what problem are = you trying to solve? >=20 > Brian >=20 > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Mohd Akhbar = wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I would like to know if we can cache to RAM only without caching to > disk or cache to RAM first before writing to disk. Is it doable in > 5.3.2 or 6.0 ? >=20 > Thanks. >=20