Hi, We've been testing Squid 3. 2.X is out of the question since we need ICAP. Our 3.0STABLE1 build with backported icap-related patches from 3.0-current is stable enough for us (no crashes, no weird behaviour). What I would personally like to see is full HTTP 1.1 compliance and a more complete ICAP implementation. However, for our own very limited use of a HTTP proxy, Squid-3 fits the bill rather nicely. Thanks ! Best, François On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:36:50 +0900 Adrian Chadd <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm quite disappointed in the lack of feedback from the community over this. > Its hard to figure out what people want if noone speaks up, so this is your > time to speak up. > > > > > > Adrian > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Hello Squid folk, > > > > I maintain Yahoo!'s internal build of Squid, and serve as a resource > > for the various Y! properties that use it. > > > > We currently only use Squid-2, and don't have plans to migrate to > > Squid-3; although ESI, ICAP as well as eCAP look interesting, there > > are too many critical features (e.g., collapsed fowarding, refresh > > stale hit, full Vary/ETag support, not to mention several things in > > 2.7DEVEL0) missing for us to use it. Additionally, anecdotal evidence > > shows that it's still too unstable and slow for production use where > > these aspects are important; or at least, there is enough doubt about > > them to make switching too risky for too little benefit. > > > > I know that there's a lot of water under the bridge WRT -2 vs -3, and > > don't want to stir up what must seem like a very old discussion to the > > developers. However, there's not much clarity about the situation WRT > > 2 vs 3, and we've been in this state for a long period of time. > > > > Specifically, a few questions for the developers of Squid: > > > > * Besides the availability of *CAP and ESI -- which are very > > specialised, and of interest only to a subset of Squid users -- is > > there any user-visible benefit to switching to -3? > > > > * What do the developers consider to be a success metric for -3? > > I.e., when will maintenance on -2 stop? > > > > * Until that time, what is the development philosophy for Squid-2? > > Will it be only maintained, or will new features be added / rewrites > > be done as (possibly sponsored) resources are available? Looking at > > <http://wiki.squid-cache.org/RoadMap/Squid2 >, it seems to be the latter; > > is that the correct interpretation? > > > > * If that success metric is not reached, what is the contingency > > plan? > > > > * How will these answers change if a substantial number of users > > willingfully choose to stay on -2 (and not just because they neglect > > to update their software)? > > > > > > Also, a few questions for -users: > > > > * Who is using -3 in production now? How are you using it (load, > > use case, etc.) and what are your experiences? > > > > * Who is planning to use -3 soon? Why? > > > > * Who is not planning to use -3 soon? Why not? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Mark Nottingham mnot@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
