Thanks for your reply Alex.
On 27/06/24 23:06, Alex Rousskov wrote:
and how your traffic tickles them, SMP Squid without atomic locks might
become very slow! We do not (and, IMO, should not) optimize performance
for environments without lock-free atomics!
I see the following options for going forward:
* Comment out the assertion, void your warranty, and hope for the best.
* Audit relevant code to confirm that the assertion is safe to remove.
* Find a usable OS/environment that has lock-free 64-bit atomics.
I am not a developer, so it will take me some help to get the code and
repercussions of it's modification understood.
In our use case, we do not use caching at all except a small in-memory
cache of say 64MB.
Squid is used for access control with external acl helper and SSL Bump
where SMP used to help with version 4.x.
Would it be catastrophic to comment out the assertion and then remove
relevant code for such a use case where there is no disk cache available
for probable corruption?
Regards,
Nishant
_______________________________________________
squid-users mailing list
squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
