On 29/04/2014 8:46 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 04/27/2014 10:02 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> We should state the problem with idles clearly (yes it is difficult to >> word), > > We already do that: > >> + max-conn limit works poorly when there is a relatively >> + large number of idle persistent connections with the >> + peer because the limiting code does not know that >> + Squid can often reuse some of those idle connections. >
Oh thats what that was about. > Do you want us to add "This poor idle connection management is a > problem." sentence to the above? That would make it worse IMO. What about: " max-conn works poorly with persistent connections and may prevent a peer being selected when there are idle connections because the limiting code does not know whether Squid can reuse some of those idle connections. " > >> or we fix that problem (see below) and update the documentation > > The change is not trivial, so I do not think we should be forced to do > that as a part of this project. There are many problems with idle > connections, and we are not making them worse by adding the standby > pools, quite the opposite. It feels like we are being penalized for > improving documentation of ancient problems. > If you want to do it as a followup fine. I just do not see a particular need to delay fixing a bug with a (now) known solution. Amos
