Optimum size for ISA server disk cacheHow to publish a secure SVN server (Apache+SSL) behind an ISA firewallRestricting cache-storage for IIS server-side webrequestsRecommended technology for layered disk cache in linuxHTTP Caching Server that supports POSTSet ARR under IIS with last-modified header for cacheCache-control for permanent 301 redirects nginxARR - dynamically disable disk caching for certain requests (authenticated users)Linux - Disk / Filesystem as a LRU Cache (with transparent expiry)Nginx server side cache proxy_pass failIs it possible to return a cached web response and then update it in the background?
Why doesn’t a normal window produce an apparent rainbow?
How to Analytically Solve this PDE?
How do governments keep track of their issued currency?
Can a user sell my software (MIT license) without modification?
Can a black dragonborn's acid breath weapon destroy objects?
Genetic limitations to learn certain instruments
Frame failure sudden death?
Polymorphic keys.....definitive list?
Random Unitary Matrices
Using a found spellbook as a Sorcerer-Wizard multiclass
What is the actual quality of machine translations?
"You've got another thing coming" - translation into French
Why was the Sega Genesis marketed as a 16-bit console?
How can I most clearly write a homebrew item that affects the ground below its radius after the initial explosion it creates?
How did they achieve the Gunslinger's shining eye effect in Westworld?
What should the arbiter and what should have I done in this case?
What could have caused a rear derailleur to end up in the back wheel suddenly?
Do simulator games use a realistic trajectory to get into orbit?
When 2-pentene reacts with HBr, what will be the major product?
Does an ice chest packed full of frozen food need ice?
Can the poison from Kingsmen be concocted?
The eyes have it
Is it a problem if <h4>, <h5> and <h6> are smaller than regular text?
Which comes first? Multiple Imputation, Splitting into train/test, or Standardization/Normalization
Optimum size for ISA server disk cache
How to publish a secure SVN server (Apache+SSL) behind an ISA firewallRestricting cache-storage for IIS server-side webrequestsRecommended technology for layered disk cache in linuxHTTP Caching Server that supports POSTSet ARR under IIS with last-modified header for cacheCache-control for permanent 301 redirects nginxARR - dynamically disable disk caching for certain requests (authenticated users)Linux - Disk / Filesystem as a LRU Cache (with transparent expiry)Nginx server side cache proxy_pass failIs it possible to return a cached web response and then update it in the background?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
Our ISA server administrator is saying this:
How the ISA cache works is as follows:
when the ISA server receives a request
to access a website, the first step it
takes is check through the cache to
see if it can load it locally. As the
cache is currently 50Gb in size, the
server has to check through this
entire cache file before a) directly
returning a result to the user or b)
passing the request out to the
internet to retrieve the web page (and
in turn place it in cache). Having to
parse this much data is likely to be
slowing down the internet access.
Having a smaller cache would be
beneficial in that the ISA server can
handle requests faster by not having
to constantly check the local disk for
lengthy (in computer terms) periods of
time.
He is advising we reduce our cache file from 50GB to 10GB.
While I agree with his sentiment, surely, this could be taken to extremes: if I don't have any cache file, surely I can skip those horrible slow disks, and just go to the nice fast Internet every time I get a request.
The question therefore: what is the optimal size for an ISA server disk cache file? Does ISA server have a convenient index or hash-table of cached requests such that it doesn't matter how large the cache file is, it will be able to find the offset of any cached content you want, inside that file in O(1) time?
performance hard-drive cache isa-server
edited May 21 at 13:49
yagmoth555♦
12.7k31842
asked Jan 8 '10 at 8:45
crbcrb
7,4573153
add a comment |
Our ISA server administrator is saying this:
How the ISA cache works is as follows:
when the ISA server receives a request
to access a website, the first step it
takes is check through the cache to
see if it can load it locally. As the
cache is currently 50Gb in size, the
server has to check through this
entire cache file before a) directly
returning a result to the user or b)
passing the request out to the
internet to retrieve the web page (and
in turn place it in cache). Having to
parse this much data is likely to be
slowing down the internet access.
Having a smaller cache would be
beneficial in that the ISA server can
handle requests faster by not having
to constantly check the local disk for
lengthy (in computer terms) periods of
time.
He is advising we reduce our cache file from 50GB to 10GB.
While I agree with his sentiment, surely, this could be taken to extremes: if I don't have any cache file, surely I can skip those horrible slow disks, and just go to the nice fast Internet every time I get a request.
The question therefore: what is the optimal size for an ISA server disk cache file? Does ISA server have a convenient index or hash-table of cached requests such that it doesn't matter how large the cache file is, it will be able to find the offset of any cached content you want, inside that file in O(1) time?
performance hard-drive cache isa-server
edited May 21 at 13:49
yagmoth555♦
12.7k31842
asked Jan 8 '10 at 8:45
crbcrb
7,4573153
Which version of ISA?
– Oskar Duveborn
Jan 8 '10 at 11:43
Fairly certain it's ISA 2006.
– crb
Jan 8 '10 at 14:35
add a comment |
Our ISA server administrator is saying this:
How the ISA cache works is as follows:
when the ISA server receives a request
to access a website, the first step it
takes is check through the cache to
see if it can load it locally. As the
cache is currently 50Gb in size, the
server has to check through this
entire cache file before a) directly
returning a result to the user or b)
passing the request out to the
internet to retrieve the web page (and
in turn place it in cache). Having to
parse this much data is likely to be
slowing down the internet access.
Having a smaller cache would be
beneficial in that the ISA server can
handle requests faster by not having
to constantly check the local disk for
lengthy (in computer terms) periods of
time.
He is advising we reduce our cache file from 50GB to 10GB.
While I agree with his sentiment, surely, this could be taken to extremes: if I don't have any cache file, surely I can skip those horrible slow disks, and just go to the nice fast Internet every time I get a request.
The question therefore: what is the optimal size for an ISA server disk cache file? Does ISA server have a convenient index or hash-table of cached requests such that it doesn't matter how large the cache file is, it will be able to find the offset of any cached content you want, inside that file in O(1) time?
performance hard-drive cache isa-server
edited May 21 at 13:49
yagmoth555♦
12.7k31842
asked Jan 8 '10 at 8:45
crbcrb
7,4573153
Our ISA server administrator is saying this:
How the ISA cache works is as follows:
when the ISA server receives a request
to access a website, the first step it
takes is check through the cache to
see if it can load it locally. As the
cache is currently 50Gb in size, the
server has to check through this
entire cache file before a) directly
returning a result to the user or b)
passing the request out to the
internet to retrieve the web page (and
in turn place it in cache). Having to
parse this much data is likely to be
slowing down the internet access.
Having a smaller cache would be
beneficial in that the ISA server can
handle requests faster by not having
to constantly check the local disk for
lengthy (in computer terms) periods of
time.
He is advising we reduce our cache file from 50GB to 10GB.
While I agree with his sentiment, surely, this could be taken to extremes: if I don't have any cache file, surely I can skip those horrible slow disks, and just go to the nice fast Internet every time I get a request.
The question therefore: what is the optimal size for an ISA server disk cache file? Does ISA server have a convenient index or hash-table of cached requests such that it doesn't matter how large the cache file is, it will be able to find the offset of any cached content you want, inside that file in O(1) time?
performance hard-drive cache isa-server
performance hard-drive cache isa-server
edited May 21 at 13:49
yagmoth555♦
12.7k31842
asked Jan 8 '10 at 8:45
crbcrb
7,4573153
edited May 21 at 13:49
yagmoth555♦
12.7k31842
asked Jan 8 '10 at 8:45
crbcrb
7,4573153
edited May 21 at 13:49
yagmoth555♦
12.7k31842
edited May 21 at 13:49
yagmoth555♦
12.7k31842
edited May 21 at 13:49
yagmoth555♦
12.7k31842
12.7k31842
asked Jan 8 '10 at 8:45
crbcrb
7,4573153
asked Jan 8 '10 at 8:45
crbcrb
7,4573153
asked Jan 8 '10 at 8:45
crbcrb
7,4573153
7,4573153
Which version of ISA?
– Oskar Duveborn
Jan 8 '10 at 11:43
Fairly certain it's ISA 2006.
– crb
Jan 8 '10 at 14:35
add a comment |
Which version of ISA?
– Oskar Duveborn
Jan 8 '10 at 11:43
Fairly certain it's ISA 2006.
– crb
Jan 8 '10 at 14:35
Which version of ISA?
– Oskar Duveborn
Jan 8 '10 at 11:43
Which version of ISA?
– Oskar Duveborn
Jan 8 '10 at 11:43
Fairly certain it's ISA 2006.
– crb
Jan 8 '10 at 14:35
Fairly certain it's ISA 2006.
– crb
Jan 8 '10 at 14:35
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It doesn't really sound plausible as the cache is as you suspect properly indexed. It is re-indexed upon service startup where ISA verifies the content of the cache. The sentiment is vague and generalized and doesn't take into account object indexing or part of the cache data also living in memory for instance - but nothing can be denied without actual testing so who knows? Reducing it to 10GB most likely wouldn't hurt either though? ^^
Performance of the cache is dependent on a lot of other factors though. ISA Server 2004 will by default use 10% of the memory for caching recently used cache objects while older objects will obviously only be on disk. Increasing memory and ensuring at least 1GB for the web cache would be advisable - and yes the disk system for the cache will have a strong impact on the general cache performance - but the size really shouldn't matter.
There is some information about ISA 2000 having a database file limit of 10GB and that it creates multiple files when that limit is exceeded - but nothing about that having a negative performance impact. There are several posts recommending no more than 10GB cache size on this version because "more wouldn't really help" but not because it would slow down.
Here're some general tips on optimizing cache performance on 2004.
answered Jan 8 '10 at 11:52
Oskar DuvebornOskar Duveborn
10.6k32948
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f100763%2foptimum-size-for-isa-server-disk-cache%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It doesn't really sound plausible as the cache is as you suspect properly indexed. It is re-indexed upon service startup where ISA verifies the content of the cache. The sentiment is vague and generalized and doesn't take into account object indexing or part of the cache data also living in memory for instance - but nothing can be denied without actual testing so who knows? Reducing it to 10GB most likely wouldn't hurt either though? ^^
Performance of the cache is dependent on a lot of other factors though. ISA Server 2004 will by default use 10% of the memory for caching recently used cache objects while older objects will obviously only be on disk. Increasing memory and ensuring at least 1GB for the web cache would be advisable - and yes the disk system for the cache will have a strong impact on the general cache performance - but the size really shouldn't matter.
There is some information about ISA 2000 having a database file limit of 10GB and that it creates multiple files when that limit is exceeded - but nothing about that having a negative performance impact. There are several posts recommending no more than 10GB cache size on this version because "more wouldn't really help" but not because it would slow down.
Here're some general tips on optimizing cache performance on 2004.
answered Jan 8 '10 at 11:52
Oskar DuvebornOskar Duveborn
10.6k32948
add a comment |
It doesn't really sound plausible as the cache is as you suspect properly indexed. It is re-indexed upon service startup where ISA verifies the content of the cache. The sentiment is vague and generalized and doesn't take into account object indexing or part of the cache data also living in memory for instance - but nothing can be denied without actual testing so who knows? Reducing it to 10GB most likely wouldn't hurt either though? ^^
Performance of the cache is dependent on a lot of other factors though. ISA Server 2004 will by default use 10% of the memory for caching recently used cache objects while older objects will obviously only be on disk. Increasing memory and ensuring at least 1GB for the web cache would be advisable - and yes the disk system for the cache will have a strong impact on the general cache performance - but the size really shouldn't matter.
There is some information about ISA 2000 having a database file limit of 10GB and that it creates multiple files when that limit is exceeded - but nothing about that having a negative performance impact. There are several posts recommending no more than 10GB cache size on this version because "more wouldn't really help" but not because it would slow down.
Here're some general tips on optimizing cache performance on 2004.
answered Jan 8 '10 at 11:52
Oskar DuvebornOskar Duveborn
10.6k32948
add a comment |
It doesn't really sound plausible as the cache is as you suspect properly indexed. It is re-indexed upon service startup where ISA verifies the content of the cache. The sentiment is vague and generalized and doesn't take into account object indexing or part of the cache data also living in memory for instance - but nothing can be denied without actual testing so who knows? Reducing it to 10GB most likely wouldn't hurt either though? ^^
Performance of the cache is dependent on a lot of other factors though. ISA Server 2004 will by default use 10% of the memory for caching recently used cache objects while older objects will obviously only be on disk. Increasing memory and ensuring at least 1GB for the web cache would be advisable - and yes the disk system for the cache will have a strong impact on the general cache performance - but the size really shouldn't matter.
There is some information about ISA 2000 having a database file limit of 10GB and that it creates multiple files when that limit is exceeded - but nothing about that having a negative performance impact. There are several posts recommending no more than 10GB cache size on this version because "more wouldn't really help" but not because it would slow down.
Here're some general tips on optimizing cache performance on 2004.
answered Jan 8 '10 at 11:52
Oskar DuvebornOskar Duveborn
10.6k32948
It doesn't really sound plausible as the cache is as you suspect properly indexed. It is re-indexed upon service startup where ISA verifies the content of the cache. The sentiment is vague and generalized and doesn't take into account object indexing or part of the cache data also living in memory for instance - but nothing can be denied without actual testing so who knows? Reducing it to 10GB most likely wouldn't hurt either though? ^^
Performance of the cache is dependent on a lot of other factors though. ISA Server 2004 will by default use 10% of the memory for caching recently used cache objects while older objects will obviously only be on disk. Increasing memory and ensuring at least 1GB for the web cache would be advisable - and yes the disk system for the cache will have a strong impact on the general cache performance - but the size really shouldn't matter.
There is some information about ISA 2000 having a database file limit of 10GB and that it creates multiple files when that limit is exceeded - but nothing about that having a negative performance impact. There are several posts recommending no more than 10GB cache size on this version because "more wouldn't really help" but not because it would slow down.
Here're some general tips on optimizing cache performance on 2004.
answered Jan 8 '10 at 11:52
Oskar DuvebornOskar Duveborn
10.6k32948
edited Jan 8 '10 at 11:59
answered Jan 8 '10 at 11:52
Oskar DuvebornOskar Duveborn
10.6k32948
answered Jan 8 '10 at 11:52
Oskar DuvebornOskar Duveborn
10.6k32948
answered Jan 8 '10 at 11:52
Oskar DuvebornOskar Duveborn
10.6k32948
10.6k32948
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f100763%2foptimum-size-for-isa-server-disk-cache%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Which version of ISA?
– Oskar Duveborn
Jan 8 '10 at 11:43
Fairly certain it's ISA 2006.
– crb
Jan 8 '10 at 14:35