On Thu, Nov 22, 2007, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On tor, 2007-11-22 at 10:57 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > > Three cheers for Henrik! :-) > > > > Any chance of a 3.1 port soon? > > We need a bit of discussion on whats the best approach on how to solve > Bug #7 first. > > I.e. should we do like I did for Squid-2, rewriting the entry, or should > we jump directly to step 2 modifying the store interface allowing only > the header to be rewritten. > > It's not very nice to rewrite the whole entry when it's a 6GB dvd > image... puts quite some strain on the disk I/O...
Hm, gotta be careful with this, as I'm about to start handling caching youtube and similarly large files in Squid-2. I'd rather not have to rewrite all these objects! Could you make this stuff optional at all at runtime? I don't mind adding in "fix the store layer a little more" and separating out the headers and object data into seperate 'parts' so things can be rewritten more easily. I'm just a bit wary about these sorts of temporary fixes going into the codebase without fixing the actual root cause - we'll just end up creating more work for ourselves in the long run if we ever want to make things "better". Adrian -- - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid Support -
