Greetings! I have a Debian Stable machine running the stock version of Squid (2.5.STABLE9). It's set up as a transparent cache, with all traffic over TCP port 80 redirected to the proxy. Additionally, we run adzap as a redirector. I have users that are complaining of failed uploads, mostly to picture sites (ofoto, shutterfly, snapfish), but also to other sites (facebook.com, myspace, etc). Checking the cache logs, the only suspicious activity are lines that look like this: (example of a Costco-branded snapfish upload) 2005/12/02 14:09:43| httpReadReply: Request not yet fully sent "POST http://64.147.178.206/uploadimagebasic.suup?authcode=<snip>& HOST_NAME=http://www.costcophotocenter.com"; I searched the FAQ and the list for that error message, and all I could find was this: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=squid-users&m=111887530904985&w=2 The message suggests that the message can be safely ignored, but it seems that there is a correlation between the messages and my failed uploads. My question is: is this indicitive of the error I'm seeing, or should I be looking elsewhere for the solution to my POST problems? Stuff I've tried so far: - Verified that POSTs work when I drop the proxy out of the equation (turn off the transparent redirect through the squid box). - Turned off all redirectors (through adzapper) under Squid so it's just a straight caching proxy; problem still persists. - Turned on explicit DIRECT for all POST method connections (pretty sure this doesn't change anything, but I'm just trying stuff out before I waste your time); problem still persists. - Double-checked my "request_body_max_size" and other limit params to make sure I'm not killing the connections on my end; everything is set to "unlimited" (I can post my whole config if people would like). - Sniffed some traffic on the wire, but didn't see anything immediately wrong. It looks like an initial burst of traffic during the POST, which quickly slows to a trickle. Eventually, the connection dies (or the user gives up), and the upload is aborted. I'm not sure why things would taper this way; I'm not using delay pools, and my upstream bandwidth isn't a problem. Any suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks, Jason -- Jason Healy http://www.logn.net/
