Nathan,
I used to run two squids on my servers which provide very similar, but
different services. I'm using SmpScale to simplify that configuration
into a single squid instance with 2 workers with slightly different
configurations. Honestly, there's one line difference, here's the top of
my squid.conf:
workers 2
if ${process_number} = 1
http_port 80
endif
if ${process_number} = 2
http_port 81
hosts_file /etc/squid3/hosts
endif
I realize that in the future the DNS cache may be shared between
workers, but for the moment it isn't so this setup works :)
So I could add something like this to make squid happy, and it won't
even open the port:
if ${process_number} = 3
http_port = 64000
endif
But that seems like a hack to me.
--Will
On 01/15/2014 06:14 PM, Nathan Hoad wrote:
Hi Will,
Why are you giving each worker a unique set of ports? Typically you
configure one set of ports for all workers, and let the operating
system handle the underlying machinery of sharing the ports across the
worker processes.
See here for more details:
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/SmpScale#Who_decides_which_worker_gets_the_request.3F
Thanks,
Nathan.
--
Nathan Hoad
Software Developer
www.getoffmalawn.com
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Will Roberts <ironwill42@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I'm working with an SmpScale configuration with 2 workers defined. Each
worker has its own set of unique ports that it listens on. The coordinator
process doesn't have any http_port lines and generates tons of these
warnings:
ERROR: No forward-proxy ports configured
That doesn't seem great, am I missing something? I'm sure I can work around
this by giving it some dummy port to listen on, but I'd rather not if it
doesn't really need it.
Thanks,
--Will
