At 01:20 PM 6/29/2005, Chris Robertson wrote: >I'm was not trying to make any less of your suggestions, and/or problems. >My intention was just to provide an alternate solution. I understand. However, I think that -- given the prevalence of Microsoft clients and the huge amount of traffic generated by patching them -- inability to configure a Squid cache that works effectively with Windows Update should be considered to be a serious bug. There is nothing MORE ubiquitous on the Internet than Windows machines, and any software that does not work effectively with it can be justifiably said to have a severe problem. Squid 3.0 seems to be fairly far from release, and it is not practical to wait for it or a good idea to rush the release. Changes to fix the problems should be added to Squid 2.5 as well as 3.0. A cache shouldn't melt down when a patching mechanism incrementally fetches a large file. Nor should it leave you, as the only alternative, having to avoid caching the file at all when many clients will be downloading it. I don't know about you, but I can't afford to spend several hundred dollars per machine on extra RAM so as to run a second copy of Squid on every one. Nor should I have to spend even more money on supplemental servers. The thing to do is fix the code. Just my $0.02. --Brett
