Scrolling back to my first response in this thread: http://marc.info/?l=squid-users&m=122366977412432&w=2 On tis, 2008-10-21 at 21:18 +0530, Paras Fadte wrote: > Hi Henrik, > > Thanks for your reply. What would be your suggestion for a CARP setup > which would provide an efficient caching system? > > Thanks in advance. > > -Paras > > On 10/16/08, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On tor, 2008-10-16 at 09:42 +0530, Paras Fadte wrote: > > > Hi Henrik, > > > > > > In CARP setup, if one uses same weightage for all the parent caches > > > how would the requests be handled ? will the requests be equally > > > forwarded to all the parent caches ? if the weightages differ then > > > won't all the requests be forwarded to a particular parent cache only > > > which has the highest weightage ? > > > > > > CARP is a hash algorithm. For each given URL there is one CARP parent > > that is the designated one. > > > > The weights control how large portion of the URL space is assigned to > > each member. > > > > > > > Also if I do not use the "proxy-only" option in the squid which > > > forwards the requests to parent caches, won't less number of requests > > > be forwarded to parent caches since it will be already cached by squid > > > in front of the parent caches? > > > > > > Correct. And it's completely orthogonal to the use of CARP. As I said > > most setups do not want to use proxy-only. proxy-only is only useful in > > some very specific setups. These setups MAY be using CARP or some other > > peering method, the choice of peering method is unrelated to proxy-only. > > > > Regards > > > > Henrik > > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
