Re: [squid-users] load balancing and site failover

2015-03-26 Thread Brendan Kearney
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 13:53 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 26/03/2015 10:26 a.m., Brendan Kearney wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 15:03 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> On 25/03/2015 9:55 a.m., brendan kearney wrote: > >>> Was not sure if bugzilla was used for mailing list issues. If you would

Re: [squid-users] load balancing and site failover

2015-03-25 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 26/03/2015 10:26 a.m., Brendan Kearney wrote: > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 15:03 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> On 25/03/2015 9:55 a.m., brendan kearney wrote: >>> Was not sure if bugzilla was used for mailing list issues. If you would >>> like me to open one, I will but it looks like the list is wo

Re: [squid-users] load balancing and site failover

2015-03-25 Thread Brendan Kearney
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 15:03 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 25/03/2015 9:55 a.m., brendan kearney wrote: > > Was not sure if bugzilla was used for mailing list issues. If you would > > like me to open one, I will but it looks like the list is working again. > > Bugzilla is used, list bugs under

Re: [squid-users] load balancing and site failover

2015-03-24 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 25/03/2015 9:55 a.m., brendan kearney wrote: > Was not sure if bugzilla was used for mailing list issues. If you would > like me to open one, I will but it looks like the list is working again. Bugzilla is used, list bugs under the "project services" product. As for your query... > On Mar 2

Re: [squid-users] load balancing and site failover

2015-03-24 Thread brendan kearney
Was not sure if bugzilla was used for mailing list issues. If you would like me to open one, I will but it looks like the list is working again. On Mar 24, 2015 2:25 PM, "Brendan Kearney" wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 10:18 -0400, Brendan Kearney wrote: > > while load balancing is not a require

Re: [squid-users] load balancing and site failover

2015-03-24 Thread Brendan Kearney
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 10:18 -0400, Brendan Kearney wrote: > while load balancing is not a requirement in a proxy environment, it > does afford a great deal of functionality, scaling and fault tolerance > in one. several if not many on this list probably employ them for their > proxies and likely o