Thanks Alex,
I am using a basic squid and I dont know if shared memory cache is used
or not in this case.
Ho about the erased file accident it's pretty weird.
Since I am using basic squid process I assumed that the logic is that
all workers use the same ufs whihc is in this case is only one.
I have filed a bug already And this process name is a nice idea.
Will try it later.
Eliezer
On 12/14/2012 12:42 AM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
Are you using a shared memory cache? If yes, please file a bug report.
You may want to add ${process_name} to your access.log line to show
which worker all these GET and PURGE requests went to.
Please note that ufs storage is not SMP-aware so the fact that the file
disappeared from disk on PURGE in your test case was just an accident.
The file will stay on disk if the worker receiving a PURGE request is
different from the worker that cached the file.
Thank you,
Alex.
--
Eliezer Croitoru
https://www1.ngtech.co.il
sip:[email protected]
IT consulting for Nonprofit organizations
eliezer <at> ngtech.co.il
