Re: [squid-users] Squid 2.7STABLE9 'zph_sibling' seemingly not tagging traffic
Hey Amos. I was waiting for that! We have a few requirements not yet satisfied in Squid 3.x, storeurl_rewrite features are a big one, so we're having to hold off until we're able to conjure something up. Can't get them ported across can you? ;-) WIth regard to 2.7, ZPH, are you aware of any bugs that may cause sibling_hit to be ineffective. I saw on the Lusca project that their code had an issue preventing the mark from ever being applied. I wonder if Squid suffers with a similar fault. Nick -- Nick Fennell n...@tbfh.org On 12 Feb 2013, at 02:05, Amos Jeffries squ...@treenet.co.nz wrote: On 12/02/2013 12:18 a.m., Nick Fennell wrote: Hi. Hi Nick, 2.7 series Squid is no longer supported or receiving bug fixes. Is there any particular reason you have not yet upgraded to 3.2 or 3.3? Amos
Re: [squid-users] Squid 2.7STABLE9 'zph_sibling' seemingly not tagging traffic
On 12/02/2013 10:31 p.m., Nick Fennell wrote: Hey Amos. I was waiting for that! We have a few requirements not yet satisfied in Squid 3.x, storeurl_rewrite features are a big one, so we're having to hold off until we're able to conjure something up. Can't get them ported across can you? ;-) That feature is already ported into 3.HEAD thanks to Eliezer. You can make use of it by building that development package. As things stand today it will be in 3.4 series. There is a bit of work and a lot of testing required to get it into 3.3, but if anyone is interested in helping out with that let me know. Eliezer has decided to concentrate on some needed further improvements now rather than back-ports. WIth regard to 2.7, ZPH, are you aware of any bugs that may cause sibling_hit to be ineffective. I saw on the Lusca project that their code had an issue preventing the mark from ever being applied. I wonder if Squid suffers with a similar fault. I'm not aware of any bugs in the ZPH patch. They (ZPH) wrote two very different versions of the feature for 2.7 and 3.x, and we have extended and fixed the 3.x version in quite a few ways since it was merged. A lot of the bugs people have reported are either in code which was never setting TOS at all, or where they confused the up/down directionality of the packet flow. As for Lusca vs 2.7, yes being a fork of that version it is likely that Lusca contains any bug known in 2.7. Amos
Re: [squid-users] Squid 2.7STABLE9 'zph_sibling' seemingly not tagging traffic
Hey Amos. I believe we're already testing the package provided by Eliezer and have encountered some issues with the current workings. I know we'll be in touch with him shortly to discuss. Hopefully it's something fixable but he'll know more when we do :) Thanks for the reply/info. Nick -- Nick Fennell n...@tbfh.org On 12 Feb 2013, at 10:08, Amos Jeffries squ...@treenet.co.nz wrote: On 12/02/2013 10:31 p.m., Nick Fennell wrote: Hey Amos. I was waiting for that! We have a few requirements not yet satisfied in Squid 3.x, storeurl_rewrite features are a big one, so we're having to hold off until we're able to conjure something up. Can't get them ported across can you? ;-) That feature is already ported into 3.HEAD thanks to Eliezer. You can make use of it by building that development package. As things stand today it will be in 3.4 series. There is a bit of work and a lot of testing required to get it into 3.3, but if anyone is interested in helping out with that let me know. Eliezer has decided to concentrate on some needed further improvements now rather than back-ports. WIth regard to 2.7, ZPH, are you aware of any bugs that may cause sibling_hit to be ineffective. I saw on the Lusca project that their code had an issue preventing the mark from ever being applied. I wonder if Squid suffers with a similar fault. I'm not aware of any bugs in the ZPH patch. They (ZPH) wrote two very different versions of the feature for 2.7 and 3.x, and we have extended and fixed the 3.x version in quite a few ways since it was merged. A lot of the bugs people have reported are either in code which was never setting TOS at all, or where they confused the up/down directionality of the packet flow. As for Lusca vs 2.7, yes being a fork of that version it is likely that Lusca contains any bug known in 2.7. Amos
[squid-users] Squid 2.7STABLE9 'zph_sibling' seemingly not tagging traffic
Hi.
I have a situation where it seems the 'zph_sibling' is not tagging traffic with
it's defined ToS mark.
I have two units configured to be siblings of each other. Both have the Digest
and Proxy options enabled.
I have a simple enough zph enabled;
{{{
zph_mode tos
zph_local 0x30
zph_sibling 0x31
}}}
I can see traffic tagged as 0x30 from both units however, I see no traffic
marked with 0x31. Nothing at all.
The closest reference to my issue is here,
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/201201/0364.html
Any suggestions appreciated.
Many Thanks,
Nick
--
Nick Fennell
n...@tbfh.org
Re: [squid-users] Squid 2.7STABLE9 'zph_sibling' seemingly not tagging traffic
On 12/02/2013 12:18 a.m., Nick Fennell wrote: Hi. Hi Nick, 2.7 series Squid is no longer supported or receiving bug fixes. Is there any particular reason you have not yet upgraded to 3.2 or 3.3? Amos
