On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:56:53AM -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: > There is an ongoing discussion about the best approach to handling > impossible situations among active Squid developers. Constructive > feedback from a Squid admin point of view is welcomed! There is no obvious right answer. I usually find immediate and visible failure to be the best option in the long run. But it is a judgement call really. > Q0: Do you think an admin should be able to control the choice among the > three options detailed above? Not really, no. But if you think it is not an undue burden for developers, why not? > Q1: Which option is the best default? Option 1 - bail out. > Q2: Would you prefer to see fewer assertions in exchange for more memory > leaks and an increased probability of malformed/corrupted/misleading > HTTP messages? Nope. I'd be worried that it would result in more fragile and harder to debug systems. I shouldn't have to babysit my servers. On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:27:56AM +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > People like yourself jumping to quick solutions, or baseing them on > outdated/wrong ideas without thinking the consequences over is why the > topic of letting admin have any control at all is controversial in the > first place. While there are all kinds of people with various knowledge levels administring proxy servers, second guessing the sysadmin is a dangerous action. I generally assume a professional sysadmin who knows what he is doing - even though perhaps they are a dying breed. -- Eray _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
