Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:53:34 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org, "N. Harrington" <drumslayer2@yahoo.com>, freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What is a "sane" setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply. Message-ID: <86r6lvalht.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <A502D00B-80A7-4BC6-9842-D0A2A50E2026@mac.com> (Chuck Swiger's message of "Tue\, 21 Aug 2007 17\:13\:15 -0700") References: <835936.35104.qm@web34510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <A502D00B-80A7-4BC6-9842-D0A2A50E2026@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> writes: > You should configure squid to use no more than about 60 - 70% of the > available physical RAM-- ie, set the cache_mem parameter to about 2.5 > or 3GB. Better yet, don't run Squid at all. It was designed for a computer architecture that was already obsolete when Squid was first written. > It wouldn't be unreasonable to limit datasize to 3 GB on such a > machine, assuming that nothing you run will ever need to grow > larger... ...actually, maxdsiz is meaningless in FreeBSD 7, because the new allocator uses mmap(2) instead of brk(2) / sbrk(2), so malloc() counts towards the resident set size (ulimit -m), not the data segment size (ulimit -d). (unless, of course, your application has its own allocator, in which case you can kiss performance goodbye) DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86r6lvalht.fsf>