On tis, 2008-06-10 at 09:42 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's strange that nobody testing it, it's very good fs.
Well, it's been mostly Adrian working on COSS in the last years, and he
does not like working on Squid-3, so the COSS version in Squid-3 has
been left behind. Additionally COSS is
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
On tis, 2008-06-10 at 09:42 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's strange that nobody testing it, it's very good fs.
Well, it's been mostly Adrian working on COSS in the last years, and he
does not like working on Squid-3, so the COSS version
Dnia Wt Czerwca 10 2008, 03:32, Adrian Chadd napisał(a):
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, doesn't work correctly ?
Clients requests pass through via proxy with ip of proxy (It isn't
correct
operating of tproxy patches for squid 2.6)
Lodge a bug then! :)
There is no
Dnia Wt Czerwca 10 2008, 04:19, Amos Jeffries napisał(a):
Hello,
Is there any reason to migrate to Squid3 (or head snapshot 3.1)?
Did anybody do compare functions/performance between 2.6 and 3.x
version?
I have high load (~400req/s) server with COSS filesystems and tproxy on
squid 2.6.18
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tproxy 4.1 is important reason for me (mayby one and only).
If you're lucky, TPROXY 4.x will make an appearance in Squid-2.HEAD sometime
in July.
That should keep you happy until something more mature comes along.
Adrian
--
- Xenion -
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clients requests pass through via proxy with ip of proxy (It isn't
correct
operating of tproxy patches for squid 2.6)
Lodge a bug then! :)
There is no one who wants fix it in balabit. I wrote at their mail list.
Well, lodge a bug with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dnia Wt Czerwca 10 2008, 04:19, Amos Jeffries napisał(a):
Hello,
Is there any reason to migrate to Squid3 (or head snapshot 3.1)?
Did anybody do compare functions/performance between 2.6 and 3.x
version?
I have high load (~400req/s) server with COSS filesystems and
Hello,
Is there any reason to migrate to Squid3 (or head snapshot 3.1)?
Did anybody do compare functions/performance between 2.6 and 3.x version?
I have high load (~400req/s) server with COSS filesystems and tproxy on
squid 2.6.18 (now tproxy doesn't work correctly, only transparent proxy).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Is there any reason to migrate to Squid3 (or head snapshot 3.1)?
IPv6 ;)
Steve
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Is there any reason to migrate to Squid3 (or head snapshot 3.1)?
Did anybody do compare functions/performance between 2.6 and 3.x version?
I have high load (~400req/s) server with COSS filesystems and tproxy on
squid 2.6.18 (now tproxy
Dnia Pn Czerwca 9 2008, 16:50, Steve Bertrand napisał(a):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Is there any reason to migrate to Squid3 (or head snapshot 3.1)?
IPv6 ;)
It isn't reason for me;) IPv6 is far future in Europe imho (specially in
Poland ;) )
--
Tomasz
Dnia Pn Czerwca 9 2008, 16:59, Adrian Chadd napisał(a):
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Is there any reason to migrate to Squid3 (or head snapshot 3.1)?
Did anybody do compare functions/performance between 2.6 and 3.x
version?
I have high load (~400req/s) server with
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, doesn't work correctly ?
Clients requests pass through via proxy with ip of proxy (It isn't correct
operating of tproxy patches for squid 2.6)
Lodge a bug then! :)
Adrian
--
- Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting -
Dnia Pn Czerwca 9 2008, 16:50, Steve Bertrand napisa³(a):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Is there any reason to migrate to Squid3 (or head snapshot 3.1)?
IPv6 ;)
It isn't reason for me;) IPv6 is far future in Europe imho (specially in
Poland ;) )
IPv6 is only as far away as you want
Hello,
Is there any reason to migrate to Squid3 (or head snapshot 3.1)?
Did anybody do compare functions/performance between 2.6 and 3.x version?
I have high load (~400req/s) server with COSS filesystems and tproxy on
squid 2.6.18 (now tproxy doesn't work correctly, only transparent proxy).
15 matches
Mail list logo
