delay_access and rep_mime_type

Hello, I would like to have a delay pool for all the heavy multimedia downloading(and I'm sure I'm the only one). But rep_mime_type won't work with delay_access, are there any plans to have delay pools working with reply data streams? I saw that someone has a patch, but didn't saw the code: http:

Re: delay_access and rep_mime_type

I'm still trying to finish off the work before committing it to Squid-2.HEAD. Just be a little more patient! :/ Adrian 2008/8/11 Nicolás Velásquez O. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello, > > I would like to have a delay pool for all the heavy multimedia > downloading(and I'm sure I'm the only one). B

Re: delay_access and rep_mime_type

Hello there, Thank you for the answer, I'm glad to hear that its going to be implemented on Squid-2.HEAD, :). Also, after some thinking about delay pools concept, I thought that it would be interesting to have shared pools. Say that you have 12Mbps of bandwidth, you create two pools one of 7Mbps

Re: delay_access and rep_mime_type

2008/8/12 Nicolás Velásquez O. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Also, after some thinking about delay pools concept, I thought that it > would be interesting to have shared pools. Say that you have 12Mbps of I agree having shared/hierarchical pools is a nifty idea. It'd be a bit horrible to implement give

Re: Environment to build a squid helper

Unfortunately there is only Guido woring on his sparetime (the little he have) on the Windows port of Squid, which means there is very limited support for Visual Studio. For some reason using later versions does not work out well and is why Squid is still using that old and now end-of-life compiler

Making start/stop idempotent

Our management tools like processes to be idempotent; i.e., you should be able to start or stop a process any number of times without it throwing an error. Currently, Squid will return 1 if a squid process is already running (upon start) and when there isn't one (upon -k shutdown). I'm wr

Re: Making start/stop idempotent

On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:43 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Our management tools like processes to be idempotent; i.e., you should > be able to start or stop a process any number of times without it > throwing an error. > > Currently, Squid will return 1 if a squid process is already running

Re: Making start/stop idempotent

Well, here's a patch for the behaviour I described... idempotent_start.patch Description: Binary data On 12/08/2008, at 2:49 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:43 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: Our management tools like processes to be idempotent; i.e., you should be a

Re: Making start/stop idempotent

On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 15:30 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Well, here's a patch for the behaviour I described... A patch for 3.x would be nice; your patch seems fine on the surface, but adding an option does just seem ugly to me :) -Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: Making start/stop idempotent

> Our management tools like processes to be idempotent; i.e., you should > be able to start or stop a process any number of times without it > throwing an error. > > Currently, Squid will return 1 if a squid process is already running > (upon start) and when there isn't one (upon -k shutdown). > >

Re: Unknown method handling in squid 2.x

> > On 16/07/2008, at 4:12 PM, Benno Rice wrote: > >> Here are two patches against squid 2.HEAD. >> >> The first completely changes the nature of method_t in order to >> allow squid to pass through methods it doesn't know about. What is >> currently called method_t becomes method_code_t and method

Re: Making start/stop idempotent

On 12/08/2008, at 3:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 15:30 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: Well, here's a patch for the behaviour I described... A patch for 3.x would be nice; I'll see what I can do, but undoubtedly I'll be slower than others... your patch seems fine on t

Re: Making start/stop idempotent

On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 16:03 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 12/08/2008, at 3:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 15:30 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> Well, here's a patch for the behaviour I described... > > > > A patch for 3.x would be nice; > > I'll see what I can do

Re: Making start/stop idempotent

So, effectively just change to exit(0) in those two places? On 12/08/2008, at 4:02 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: Our management tools like processes to be idempotent; i.e., you should be able to start or stop a process any number of times without it throwing an error. Currently, Squid will retur

Re: Making start/stop idempotent

> So, effectively just change to exit(0) in those two places? > For the HEAD commit(s) yes. If you need it ported the option may be needed to keep other users going. Amos > > On 12/08/2008, at 4:02 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >>> Our management tools like processes to be idempotent; i.e., you >>>

Re: Unknown method handling in squid 2.x

On 12/08/2008, at 4:05 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: On 16/07/2008, at 4:12 PM, Benno Rice wrote: Here are two patches against squid 2.HEAD. The first completely changes the nature of method_t in order to allow squid to pass through methods it doesn't know about. What is currently called method

Re: Unknown method handling in squid 2.x

On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 16:20 +1000, Benno Rice wrote: > On 12/08/2008, at 4:05 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > By that do you mean you are syncing with the logic fix made for 3.1? > > > I didn't directly refer to that, no. I set up a set of simple unit > tests that checked compliance against the

Re: Unknown method handling in squid 2.x

> > On 12/08/2008, at 4:05 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >>> >>> On 16/07/2008, at 4:12 PM, Benno Rice wrote: >>> Here are two patches against squid 2.HEAD. The first completely changes the nature of method_t in order to allow squid to pass through methods it doesn't know about. W

Re: Unknown method handling in squid 2.x

On 12/08/2008, at 4:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 16:20 +1000, Benno Rice wrote: On 12/08/2008, at 4:05 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: By that do you mean you are syncing with the logic fix made for 3.1? I didn't directly refer to that, no. I set up a set of simple unit t