Amos Jeffries wrote:
No, its just the most modern and one thats shown some promise in recent
benchmarking earlier this year by a large-scale user. Thier exact results
are buried back in the mailing list somewhere.
There are other algorithms, with different properties that suite differing
siutaions.
I'll take a look at CARP, thanks =]
The config manual seems to suggest otherwise:
"cache_peer 172.16.1.123 sibling 3129 5500 weight=2"
Or am I assuming too much here? I could be getting the wrong end of the
stick; but it seemed like using a similar cache_peer entries to the
above, but with a couple having the weight=100 didn't seem to change the
way squid was choosing the cache_peer to use.
I'm not sure which config manual you got that from. The Official
Authoritative one does not include that text.
http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.6/cfgman/cache_peer.html
http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.0/cfgman/cache_peer.html
ViSolve.. heh
Thanks again Amos!
--
Tony Dodd, Systems Administrator
Last.fm | http://www.last.fm
Karen House 1-11 Baches Street
London N1 6DL
check out my music taste at:
http://www.last.fm/user/hawkeviper
