On 4/09/2013 2:40 a.m., Antony Stone wrote:
Why runs the parent
squid process as root and the child as user proxy? Is that normal? Is it
best practice? Should I chmod or chown cache directory?
It is completely normal for a great many applications providing network
services, and yes, it is best
Thanks Antony for your explanation. Sounds reasonable.
As the production process of Squid3 runs as user proxy and the cache disk
contents belong to the same user, there shouldn't be a problem for Squid3 to
overwrite/recycle the cached objects.
The thread is marked resolved.
Regards,
Bob
--
Thanks Antony for your explanation. Sounds reasonable to me.
The thread is marked solved.
Regards,
Bob
--
View this message in context:
http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/Squid-3-doesn-t-overwrite-replace-cached-objects-tp4661911p4661969.html
Sent from the Squid - Users
One more detail:
root@squid3proxy:~# ps -eF|grep squid
root 2852 1 0 11978 3024 0 10:04 ?00:00:00
/usr/sbin/squid3 -YC -f /etc/squid3/squid.conf
proxy 2855 2852 1 58542 165992 0 10:04 ?00:00:51 (squid) -YC
-f /etc/squid3/squid.conf
Squid3 service runs as
I think, I found the cause myself:
The cache_dir directive had settings from an earlier Squid proxy server,
which had a bigger cache disk. (I CPed them when I set up the current proxy
server). It was:
The current Squid server has a cache disk of 20GB and according to the
description of the
On Tuesday 03 September 2013 at 16:31:25, uners wrote:
My question regarding different process owners remains: Why runs the parent
squid process as root and the child as user proxy? Is that normal? Is it
best practice? Should I chmod or chown cache directory?
It is completely normal for a
