Re: [squid-users] cache_peer weighting

On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 23:31 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> Tony Dodd wrote:
> > According to CARP draft v1, the only place the port is stored, is in the
> > ASCII Proxy Array Membership Table.
> > For anyone who hasn't seen the draft, it's available at
> > http://www.linofee.org/~jel/da/mmb99/7/CarpSpec.html
>
> Squid is a little different in its peer requirements. The peering needs
> to be anchored off the name= parameter or in the absence of that the
> peer ip/fqdn given. In squid THAT must be unique for several other
> indexes similar to this.
> There is no requirement in squid that the IP/http-port combo be unique
> because the IP/icp-port combo may be the difference.

> > Equally, there's the issue
> > of getting a wide enough hash distribution; however, looking at the data
> > I'm logging, with the combination of URL+proxy hash, the results are
> > extremely wide and varying, so I don't think it is breaking anything -
> > that said, it is 7am, and I am tired, so hopefully someone else can
> > agree/disagree on this point.
> >
> >> * do people have a problem with this going into squid, with relevant
> >> documentation
> >> being written about how CARP has been "extended" like this?
>
> A hash alteration is clearly needed, just the details of what.

What if Squid is not the only device doing CARP in a given environment?
It may be important to allow the administrator to configure Squid
hashing to match that of other devices so "extending" the hashing specs
may require an option to turn the extensions off.

Alex.
Received on Wed Dec 19 2007 - 09:33:32 MST