On 30/04/2014 2:10 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 04/29/2014 05:48 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> 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. > > >> 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. >> " > > Sure, I would just emphasize that a peer may be excluded only when it > reached the limit, not just when it has some pconns: > > " > max-conn currently works poorly with idle persistent connections: When a > peer reaches its max-conn limit, and there are idle persistent > connections to the peer, the peer may not be selected because the > limiting code does not know whether Squid can reuse those idle connections. > " >
+1. Amos
