From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 12 14:59:06 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF3516A420 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:59:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from mk-outboundfilter-1-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-1-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB1913C4D9 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:59:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) X-Trace: 245789/mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$MX-ACCEPTED/pipex-infrastructure/62.241.162.32 X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 62.241.162.32 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: xfb52@dial.pipex.com X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAPt+X0c+8aIg/2dsb2JhbAA Received: from ranger.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.162.32]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2007 14:29:59 +0000 Received: from [192.168.23.2] (62-31-10-181.cable.ubr05.edin.blueyonder.co.uk [62.31.10.181]) by ranger.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B91AE000094; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:29:58 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <475FF065.40803@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:29:57 +0000 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20061205 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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.> In-Reply-To: <20071212132805.608dcfd5@gumby.homeunix.com.> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:59:06 -0000 RW wrote: >On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:31:08 +0000 >Alex Zbyslaw 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