On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:01 AM, H <hm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Carlos Manuel Trepeu Pupo wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM, H <hm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Eliezer Croitoru wrote: >>>> On 03/04/2012 18:30, Carlos Manuel Trepeu Pupo wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Amos Jeffries<squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 03.04.2012 02:21, Carlos Manuel Trepeu Pupo wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks a looooooottttt !! That's what I'm missing, everything work >>>>>>> fine now. So this script can use it cause it's already works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, I need to know if there is any way to consult the active request >>>>>>> in squid that work faster that squidclient !!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ACL types are pretty easy to add to the Squid code. I'm happy to >>>>>> throw an >>>>>> ACL patch your way for a few $$. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which comes back to me earlier still unanswered question about why >>>>>> you want >>>>>> to do this very, very strange thing? >>>>>> >>>>>> Amos >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK !! Here the complicate and strange explanation: >>>>> >>>>> Where I work we have 128 Kbps for the use of almost 80 PCs, a few of >>>>> them use download accelerators and saturate the channel. I began to >>>>> use the ACL maxconn but I have still a few problems. 60 of the clients >>>>> are under an ISA server that I don't administrate, so I can't limit >>>>> the maxconn to them like the others. Now with this ACL, everyone can >>>>> download but with only one connection. that's the strange main idea. >>>> what do you mean by only one connection? >>>> if it's under one isa server then all of them share the same external IP. >>>> >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I am following this thread with mixed feelings of weirdness and >>> admiration ... >>> >>> there are always two ways to reach a far point, it's left around or >>> right around the world, depending on your position one of the ways is >>> always the longer one. I can understand that some without hurry and >>> money issues chose the longer one, perhaps also because of more chance >>> for adventurous happenings, unknown and the unexpected >>> >>> so know I explained in a similar long way what I do not understand, why >>> would you make such a complicated out of scope code, slow, certainly >>> dangerous ... if at least it would be perl, but bash calling external >>> prog and grepping, whow ... when you can solve it with a line of code ? >>> >>> this task would fit pf or ipfw much better, would be more elegant and >>> zillions times faster and secure, not speaking about time investment, >>> how much time you need to write 5/6 keywords of code? >>> >>> or is it for demonstration purpose, showing it as an alternative >>> possibility? >>> >> >> It's great read this. I just know BASH SHELL, but if you tell me that >> I can make this safer and faster... Previously post I talk about >> this!! That someone tell me if there is a better way of do that, I'm >> newer !! Please, if you can guide me >> > > > who knows ... > > what is your purpose? solve bandwidth problems? Connection rate? > Congestion? I believe that limiting to *one* download is not your real > intention, because the browser could still open hundreds of regular > pages and your download limit is nuked and was for nothing ... > > what is your operating system? > I pretend solve bandwidth problems. For the persons who uses download manager or accelerators, just limit them to 1 connection. Otherwise I tried to solve with delay_pool, the packet that I delivery to the client was just like I configured, but with accelerators the upload saturate the channel. > > > -- > H > +55 11 4249.2222 >
