On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 13:18 +0900, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
> > I had Adrian benchmark 3.x recently. With his specific RAM-pathways test.
> >
> > The cutoff for speed seems to be Squid3 reaching 500-650 req/sec and
> > Squid 2.6 going past that into the
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:34 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > * Christos Tsantilas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>> But since, i had heard that Squid 2.6 version had better performance
> >>> than Squid 3.0, i would like to try that also as a backup.
> >> Squid 3 is enough fas
* Marcus Kool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> I can confirm that. We switched from 2.6 -> 3.0 with no hassle (at 100
>>> requests/s)
>>>
>>
>> I had Adrian benchmark 3.x recently. With his specific RAM-pathways test.
>>
>> The cutoff for speed seems to be Squid3 reaching 500-650 req/sec and
>> Squid 2.
Amos Jeffries wrote:
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Christos Tsantilas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
But since, i had heard that Squid 2.6 version had better performance
than Squid 3.0, i would like to try that also as a backup.
Squid 3 is enough fast for most cases. You will not see any
difference in
pe
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> I had Adrian benchmark 3.x recently. With his specific RAM-pathways test.
>
> The cutoff for speed seems to be Squid3 reaching 500-650 req/sec and
> Squid 2.6 going past that into the 800-900 req/sec ranges. At a few
> hundred concurrent requests.
h
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Christos Tsantilas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
But since, i had heard that Squid 2.6 version had better performance
than Squid 3.0, i would like to try that also as a backup.
Squid 3 is enough fast for most cases. You will not see any difference in
performance unless you hav
* Christos Tsantilas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > But since, i had heard that Squid 2.6 version had better performance
> > than Squid 3.0, i would like to try that also as a backup.
>
> Squid 3 is enough fast for most cases. You will not see any difference in
> performance unless you have a very-very
Hi Selvi,
>
> Yes, I had already tried that.
>
> But since, i had heard that Squid 2.6 version had better performance
> than Squid 3.0, i would like to try that also as a backup.
Squid 3 is enough fast for most cases. You will not see any difference in
performance unless you have a very-very busy
Yes, I had already tried that.
But since, i had heard that Squid 2.6 version had better performance
than Squid 3.0, i would like to try that also as a backup.
Thanks
Selvi
Amos Jeffries wrote:
selvi wrote:
Hello All,
I am in the process of patching Squid 2.6 icap with
Squid-2.6.STABLE10
selvi wrote:
Hello All,
I am in the process of patching Squid 2.6 icap with Squid-2.6.STABLE10
version.
Have you tried Squid 3.0 stable 1 ? It incorporates ICAP natively
amongst other improvements.
Amos
--
Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+
There are serious security advisories o
Hello All,
I am in the process of patching Squid 2.6 icap with Squid-2.6.STABLE10
version.
Squid 2.6 icap patch is taken from
http://devel.squid-cache.org/cgi-bin/diff2/icap-2_6.patch
I had one rejection in client_side.c and i had done that change manually.
But when i issue the command 'm
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Awie wrote:
>
> > Yes, I followed the patch order released (bottom up on the patches
page).
> > But I did not use all patches. I only applied what I think that I need
it.
> > Is it not allowed?
>
> When it works it is allowed, but some patches may depend on earlier
> patches
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Awie wrote:
> Yes, I followed the patch order released (bottom up on the patches page).
> But I did not use all patches. I only applied what I think that I need it.
> Is it not allowed?
When it works it is allowed, but some patches may depend on earlier
patches as is the case
TECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Patching Squid (Again)
> Henrik,
>
> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Awie wrote:
> >
> > > From the error messages, will the new patch or the other patches be
> ignored?
> > > Would you tell me t
Henrik,
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Awie wrote:
>
> > From the error messages, will the new patch or the other patches be
ignored?
> > Would you tell me the source of problem?
>
> Any FAILED is problems.
Absolutely. Thanks.
>
> The source of the problem is most likely that you are not applying the
>
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Awie wrote:
> From the error messages, will the new patch or the other patches be ignored?
> Would you tell me the source of problem?
Any FAILED is problems.
The source of the problem is most likely that you are not applying the
squid-2.5.STABLE4 patches in the correct order
L PROTECTED]>
To: "Awie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Squid-users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Patching Squid
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Awie wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] squid-2.5.STABLE4]# patch -
Thank you so much Hendrik !
Thx & Rgds,
Awie
- Original Message -
From: "Henrik Nordstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Awie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Squid-users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: Re:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Awie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] squid-2.5.STABLE4]# patch -p1< squid-2.5.STABLE4-synflood.patch
> patching file src/cf.data.pre
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 3107 (offset -8 lines).
> patching file src/comm.c
> patching file src/forward.c
> patching file src/neighbors.c
> patching fil
All,
I tried to apply patch and saw messages below.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] squid-2.5.STABLE4]# patch -p1< squid-2.5.STABLE4-synflood.patch
patching file src/cf.data.pre
Hunk #1 succeeded at 3107 (offset -8 lines).
patching file src/comm.c
patching file src/forward.c
patching file src/neighbors.c
patch
20 matches
Mail list logo
