On 06/09/2013 12:59 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 06/09/2013 03:29 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>Would you prefer a filtering based on a reload or a persistent DB like
>mongoDB or tokyo tyrant?
I would prefer to improve Squid so that reconfiguration has no
disrupting effects on traffic, eliminating the "reload is disruptive for
Squid but not for my ICAP service" difference.
There are many important differences between ACL lists, eCAP adapters,
and ICAP services. Reconfiguration handling should not be one of them.
Eliezer seems to be concerned about what happens during reconfiguration,
and he has a point.
A Squid reconfigure simply stops the web proxy service for some time, while
a reconfigure of a 3rd party component (URL redirector, ICAP
or other helper) _may_ not cause a disruption of service.
Therefor I would never use the filter-with-squid-acls option (ok, I am biased
but ufdbGuard reconfiguration does not interrupt the proxy service
and some admins reconfigure it often during working hours).
Although one can schedule to do a reconfigure at 3 AM when disruption
of service should not be a problem there are always the small or big problems
that appear during working hours and need an immediate configuration change.
And yes, improve Squid to have no service disruption during a reconfigure
will be a great feature.
Are you aiming at "minimise service disruption window" or go for
"never disrupt service" (unless a very important parameter like port number changes).
Marcus
