On 04/02/2013 07:58 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 2/04/2013 10:46 p.m., Eugene M. Zheganin wrote:
>> On 02.04.2013 14:30, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>> No, unfortuately nobody is working on that part yet.
>>>
>>> As a workaround you should be able to retrieve SNMP information
>>> per-worker by using ${process_number} in the snmp_port directive to
>>> assign each worker a unique port for SNMP contact.
>>>
>>>
>> Is it worth reporting in the bugzilla ? (Or maby this is a well known
>> planned to fix issue and the report will just add unnecessary
>> escalation ?)
>> For example I can live for now with one worker, even on my most crowded
>> productions.
> We are tracking it on the http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/SmpScale
> feature page.
> I see now that apparently there is something underway - but no mention
> of it specifically what that is has come through squid-dev yet IIRC.
AFAICT, initial SMP SNMP support project has been completed in 2011
(trunk r11203) but the wiki was not updated to reflect that. I have now
updated the wiki page.
Apparently, something broke the working code since those changes (or
perhaps the code did not work on the affected platforms). Any SMP SNMP
support bugs should be added to bugzilla IMO. Filing a bug report itself
does not guarantee that somebody will rush to fix the bug, of course,
but it has many positive side-effects.
Cheers,
Alex.
