On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:16:35AM +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > m??n 2007-06-11 klockan 14:42 -0500 skrev Dave Dykstra: > > > Two different processes > > can't open the same address & port on Linux, but one process can open a > > socket and pass it to two forked children. So, I have modified > > squid2.6STABLE13 to accept a command line option with a file descriptor > > of an open socket to use instead of opening its own socket. I then > > wrote a small perl script to open the socket and fork/exec the two > > squids. This is working and I am now getting around 230MB/s throughput > > according to the squid SNMP statistics. > > > > Does this sound like a reasonable way to do it? > > Yes. > > > Do you have a preferred way to do it? > > Yours sound good to me. Why do it differently? I hadn't thought of anything, I just thought you might know of another way you liked better. > The only thing I might do differently is to also support the passed > filedescriptor to be passed as stdin making the startup more like how > inetd starts such servers.. The man page and squid.conf still talk about a '-a port' command line option to override the port number, even though it is gone from the code. Because of that former option, I chose '-A fd' as the option. So '-A 0' would work for passing in stdin. If you like, I could make it only work via stdin, but I don't think it makes sense to support both a general file descriptor option and a separate one for stdin-only. Let me know which way you prefer. Oh, or are you saying that squid should check to see if stdin is a socket (with getsockopt), and if so assume it should just use it? > > If I cleaned up my patch and submitted it, is there a > > chance it could get picked up for inclusion in the standard squid > > distribution so I don't need to maintain it myself? > > Yes. Just submit it as a enhancement request in bugzilla, or mail > squid-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Regards > Henrik Thanks, - Dave
