Just to summarise the discussion, both public and private.
* Squid-3 is receiving the bulk of the active core Squid developers' focus;
* Squid-2 won't be actively developed at the moment by anyone outside
of paid commercial work;
* I've been asked (and agreed at the moment) to not push any big c
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 10:18 +0900, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> At the end of the day, I'd rather see something that an increasing number of
> people
> on the Internet will use and - I won't lie here - whatever creates a self
> sustaining
> project, both from community and financial perspectives.
I ag
, March 16, 2008 9:25 PM
To: Adrian Chadd
Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Squid Future (was Re: [squid-users] Squid-2,
Squid-3, roadmap)
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 10:18 +0900, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> At the end of the day, I'd rather see something that an increasing
>
My 2c WRT 2 v 3 etc;
- We currently run commercial proxies and are looking to replace them with
squid boxes, however recent list discussion is making me a little nervous. I
would have used 2.6 for performance (need to support 10K users) and for
- Secure Computing's Smartfilter. It currently runs
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008, Nick Duda wrote:
> The only reason I haven't upgraded beyond the current stable 2.6 code is that
> some third part companies (like Secure Computing, who we use as a Squid
> plugin) only supports certain versions of squid. I haven't even played with
> 3.0 because of this. I
For our purposes (reverse proxy usage) we don't see any missing
features from squid 3 that we would need - however, we'd like to see
the code base mature some more before we trust it in production. Same
reason that smart folks don't deploy new Cisco IOS trains until it
hits the 3rd or 4th r
Chris Woodfield wrote:
For our purposes (reverse proxy usage) we don't see any missing features
from squid 3 that we would need - however, we'd like to see the code
base mature some more before we trust it in production. Same reason that
smart folks don't deploy new Cisco IOS trains until it hi
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 20:14 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/squid-users@squid-cache.org/msg52509.html
>
> Hmm, not sure exactly what Adrian as planned there, beyond changing the
> underlying malloc/calloc system of squid to something else.
> Added it to the 'undocument
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> Squid-3 is different and uses a splay tree for the memory nodes of the
> object, and should behave a lot better in this regard.
The bounds are probably saner but the runtime hit for small objects
is noticable.
The real solution is a tree for offset
