Size a file backed cache
perbu at varnish-software.com
Wed Apr 10 14:04:51 CEST 2013
No. The overhead is in the form of memory structures.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Sean Allen <sean at monkeysnatchbanana.com>wrote:
> I understand that. Let me rephrase that question. When using file storage,
> am I correct in assuming, that the overhead uses additional space on the
> volume that the file itself is on?
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Stephen Wood <smwood4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ultimately the amount of overhead space needed is determined by the
>> number of objects you have. The overhead is about 1k per object. You can
>> read more at *Sizing Your Cache*<https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/3.0/tutorial/sizing_your_cache.html>on the varnish doc.
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Sean Allen <sean at monkeysnatchbanana.com>wrote:
>>> I know when using malloc storage, that we end up based on our object
>>> size, about another 100% percent memory to store additional booking info.
>>> So where we have a
>>> -s malloc, 6g
>>> We need a total of 12g available to the OS.
>>> If I switch to
>>> -s file, 10g
>>> Do I need 20g of HD space available on that drive?
>>> I'm unclear how the issues with malloc map to file storage backend.
>>> For example, why does file default to 50% sizing of the volume?
>>> varnish-misc mailing list
>>> varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
> Ce n'est pas une signature
> varnish-misc mailing list
> varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
<http://www.varnish-software.com/> *Per Buer*
CEO | Varnish Software AS
Phone: +47 958 39 117 | Skype: per.buer
We Make Websites Fly!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the varnish-misc