Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:29:57 +0000 From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files Message-ID: <475FF065.40803@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <20071212132805.608dcfd5@gumby.homeunix.com.> References: <475E0190.7030909@pacific.net.sg> <200712120920.46626.nvass@teledomenet.gr> <475FCD8A.5090903@dial.pipex.com> <200712121310.01617.wundram@beenic.net> <475FD48C.7090508@dial.pipex.com> <20071212132805.608dcfd5@gumby.homeunix.com.>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW wrote: >On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:31:08 +0000 >Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> wrote: > >>I have zero experience of squid beyond reading about it, but it has >>always sounded like a major resource hog. >> >> > >It depends how you use it. I think you can probably get it down to >about 15 MB, if you eliminate memory caching and use a modest disk >cache. Squid needs to store per object metadata in memory, about >10-20MB per GB of disk cache, and that's what leads to very large >memory use. > Thanks for the info. That doesn't seem too bad in relation to a small network, but I can see why a large network might want to dedicate a separate host. --Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?475FF065.40803>