On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:34:11 -0300 Marcus Kool <marcus.kool@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. There is no reason for service disruption for a competent administrator. For every problem there is a solution. See my response. I just got done testing both methods, and they work. > > 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 > - Signed, Fix Nichols http://www.squidblacklist.org
