On 10/17/19 7:13 PM, Antonio SJ Musumeci wrote: > On 10/17/2019 5:47 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: >> Unfortunately, a simple implementation may produce a lot of false >> warnings in some environments while a quality implementation may not be >> as easy as you think: Accessing free space info may require special >> permissions and correctly accounting for the existing shared memory >> segments in that partition would be tricky (they can be leftovers from >> the previous Squid run that will be overwritten or something completely >> unrelated to Squid). Even finding the right partition name in a portable >> way may be tricky! >> >> IMHO, the future development directions outlined when adding >> shared_memory_locking are more promising in general, but I would be >> happy to learn that there are even better options. > Clearly Squid is aware of the path where these temp files are being > created Actually, the location of shared memory segments is chosen by the OS. Not all OSes do what Linux does. The code dealing with [naming] shared memory segments is more complicated than you probably imagine. However, let's not spend time arguing about these low-level specifics here: If you can contribute an improvement, please post a plan on squid-dev. Otherwise, let's leave these low-level details to those contributing improvements. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
