:) Yup I can understand, i will keep buzzing the mailbox/irc as putting
efforts in large scale deployment.
--
Regards,
Faisal.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Leif Hedstrom" <zwoop@apache.org>
To: users@trafficserver.apache.org
Sent: 3/22/2016 12:29:55 AM
Subject: Re: Different Cache Disk for different size of objects
>Yep, keep it coming :) I'm just saying that you shouldn't hold your
>breath on this particular request. Most of us work for corporations
>with their own requirements and needs :)
>
>Cheers,
>
>-- Leif
>
>On Mar 21, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Muhammad Faisal <faisalusuf@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>OK, it was just a random thought on enhancing caching performance.
>>Thanks for your response.
>>--
>>Regards,
>>Faisal.
>>
>>
>>
>>------ Original Message ------
>>From: "Leif Hedstrom" <zwoop@apache.org>
>>To: users@trafficserver.apache.org
>>Sent: 3/21/2016 11:56:08 PM
>>Subject: Re: Different Cache Disk for different size of objects
>>
>>>I don't know of anyone that is interesting on working on that
>>>specific feature. What we have been talking about is an automatic
>>>migration of objects up and down the storage hierarchy.
>>>
>>>Having it write to SSD first could be both good and bad (fast but
>>>lots of write wear).
>>>
>>>On Mar 21, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Muhammad Faisal <faisalusuf@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>OK. But this feature can be added right? May be in future releases.
>>>>It can improve caching performance by avoiding seek time of disks
>>>>which increase over the period of time with high disk WR.
>>>>--
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Faisal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>------ Original Message ------
>>>>From: "Leif Hedstrom" <zwoop@apache.org>
>>>>To: users@trafficserver.apache.org; "Muhammad Faisal"
>>>><faisalusuf@yahoo.com>
>>>>Sent: 3/21/2016 9:52:35 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: Different Cache Disk for different size of objects
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:35 AM, Muhammad Faisal
>>>>>><faisalusuf@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>Is this possible to allocate a different disk for different object
>>>>>>sizes? Below is the scenario I'm trying to implement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Object size <1MB -----> SSD
>>>>>>Object Size > 1MB ----> HDD
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This will improve Caching performance as smaller objects will be
>>>>>>served from SSD while larger objects will reside on the HDD.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, not at this point. Part of the issue is that we select
>>>>>“storage” before going to origin, so you don’t know what the size
>>>>>is going to be before you get the response. And at that point, you
>>>>>(currently) can’t move to a different storage / volume. But @amc
>>>>>would know best.
>>>>>
>>>>>— leif
>>>>>
>>>>>
|