Search squid archive

Re: Squid Future (was Re: [squid-users] Squid-2, Squid-3, roadmap)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



For our purposes (reverse proxy usage) we don't see any missing features from squid 3 that we would need - however, we'd like to see the code base mature some more before we trust it in production. Same reason that smart folks don't deploy new Cisco IOS trains until it hits the 3rd or 4th rebuild.

However, I will use this opportunity to put forth my own wishlist of missing features (that AFAIK aren't even present in squid 3.0 at this time - if they are please let me know!:

- Multithreading, multithreading, multithreading!

- Better handling of cache_dir failures:
What I mean here is, if you have multiple cache_dirs configured (presumably on separate disks) squid should not refuse to start if one is unavailable. It should scream loudly, yes, but should be able to carry on with the ones it can use. For bonus points, make squid capable of "dropping" a cache_dir that becomes unavailable during runtime.

- Fix mem_cache bottleneck that effectively prohibits large files from being stored in squid's memory.

http://www.mail-archive.com/squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg52509.html

- Allow helper children (url_rewriters, etc) to send some sort of "pause" message back to squid to signal that that child is temporarily unavailable for new queries, and then a "ready" message when it's available again. (yes, this is kinda obscure - the issue here is a single-threaded rewriter helper app that occasionally has to re-read its rules database, and can't answer queries while it's doing so)

- A better mechanism (B-tree maybe?) for storing cache contents such that cached object URIs can be quickly searched via path or regex for reporting/purging purposes.

- Oh, and I want a pony.

Thanks,

-C

On Mar 16, 2008, at 9:18 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Just to summarise the discussion, both public and private.

* Squid-3 is receiving the bulk of the active core Squid developers' focus;
* Squid-2 won't be actively developed at the moment by anyone outside
 of paid commercial work;
* I've been asked (and agreed at the moment) to not push any big changes to
 Squid-2.

If your organisation relies on Squid-2 and you haven't any plans to migrate
to Squid-3, then there's a few options.

* Discuss migrating to Squid-3 with the Squid-3 developers, see what can be done. * Discuss commercial Squid-2 support/development with someone (eg Xenion/me).
* Migrate away from Squid to something else.

Obviously all of us would prefer that users wouldn't migrate away from Squid in general, so if the migration to Squid-3 isn't on your TODO list for whatever reason then its in your best interests -right now- to discuss this out in the
open.

If you don't think that Squid as a project is heading in a direction that is useful for you, then its in your best interests -right now- to discuss this with the Squid development team rather than ignoring the issue or discussing it privately. I'd prefer open discussions which everyone can view and contribute towards.

If there's enough interest in continuing the development of Squid-2 along my Roadmap or any other plan then I'm interested in discussing this with you. If the interest is enough to warrant beginning larger changes to Squid-2 to support features such as IPv6, threading and improved general performance then I may reconsider my agreement with the Squid-3 developers (and deal with
whatever pain that entails.)

At the end of the day, I'd rather see something that an increasing number of people on the Internet will use and - I won't lie here - whatever creates a self sustaining
project, both from community and financial perspectives.





Adrian



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Samba]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Linux USB]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux