On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 07:34:37 -0700 (PDT) John Doe <jdmls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Cool, thx. > Would the following work...? > > # u1 servers pool > cache_peer 192.168.16.101 parent 80 0 no-query originserver no-digest no-netdb-exchange max-conn=256 sourcehash name=u1pool > cache_peer 192.168.16.102 parent 80 0 no-query originserver no-digest no-netdb-exchange max-conn=256 sourcehash name=u1pool > cache_peer 192.168.16.103 parent 80 0 no-query originserver no-digest no-netdb-exchange max-conn=256 sourcehash name=u1pool > > # u2 servers pool > cache_peer 192.168.16.201 parent 80 0 no-query originserver no-digest no-netdb-exchange max-conn=256 sourcehash name=u2pool > cache_peer 192.168.16.202 parent 80 0 no-query originserver no-digest no-netdb-exchange max-conn=256 sourcehash name=u2pool > cache_peer 192.168.16.203 parent 80 0 no-query originserver no-digest no-netdb-exchange max-conn=256 sourcehash name=u2pool > > acl u1 url_regex ^http://u1 > acl u2 url_regex ^http://u2 > cache_peer_access u1pool allow u1 > cache_peer_access u1pool deny u2 > cache_peer_access u2pool allow u2 > cache_peer_access u2pool deny u1 > > Won't there be a problem with the redundant 'name=u?pool' I tried it once with squid 2.6. It did not work. But I would really like it if that would actually work (i.e. grouping multiple peers together so one doesn't need to create the same cache_peer_access-rules for all peers). Greets Malte
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
