Thanks for the blunted honesty... I'll give the delay pools a shot rather than having multiple boxes doing the work... Regards, On 6/8/05, Peter Surda <shurdeek@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:01:42 +0200 Kenneth Kalmer <kenneth.kalmer@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > >Hmm, just has an idea, dunno if this will work... > > > >Can I use WRR on an IMQ disc > Yes, this works without problems (Route Hat's tc script does it). > > >to make sure that the incoming traffic is > >not saturated by a single squid request? Squid runs transparently, and > >I've noticed that it downloads the file faster than the client gets it > >from squid, so big downloads can very easily congest the link... > This indicates an incorrect setup. Limiting squid's connections to clients won't > have the expected effect, the connections are handled asynchronously. > > >Possible? > Now, combining WRR and Squid is another topic. It is possible, but difficult. > > On the WRR website, there is a program called "proxyremap" that should solve > this in userspace. I never tried it, but it is supposed to work. > > The other option is to use squid with tproxy patch. This requires a > rearrangement of the network setup though (tproxy and NAT don't work on the same > machine, and because tproxy mangles IP but not MAC, you have to put it on a > separate segment or use it as a next hop or a bridge, or use other tricks, such > as arptables' MAC mangling). > > I only tried the last one (tproxy + mac mangling), for about 10 days, on a > network with about 60 local computers, and it was a horrible hack, but worked. > The reason that I only used it for such a short time wasn't that there were > problems, I just wanted to test it with Route Hat in case some customers request > it. > > Unfortunately, TPROXY mailing list mentions a couple of times that rewriting > TPROXY so that it works with NAT isn't easy, so for foreseeable future we're > stuck with the above "solutions" (well, most of them are workarounds). > > Other than that, you can play with squid's delay pools. Unless however you > fine-tune the proxies priority (in my experience very difficult) you're still > screwed. > > Yours sincerely, > Peter > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list > LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc > -- Kenneth Kalmer kenneth.kalmer@xxxxxxxxx http://opensourcery.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
