Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
> Partly agreed. The maximum_object_size default of 4MB is quite likely
> too small by todays standards. There is however a handful of technical
> reasons to why the size limit is there. Consider for example what
> happens if there is an object size larger than the cache size?
Yes, but this doesn't solve that problem, it just muddles it. If somebody
has a 2MB cache, this doesn't help. If somebody has a 2GB cache (pretty
darned likely, actually), this doesn't help.
> The [request|reply]_*_max_size parameters is access control. Completely
> different story. These are nowdays unlimited by default as it is not our
> job to police the use of the Internet, and we have no technical reasons
> to limit these.
>
> The maximum_object_size is finetuning of the cache policy and avoidance
> of too large objects for the cache to handle.
Yes, it is. But like all 'max size' parameters, it has the problem
of needing constant adjustment upward. 4MB was an appropriate amount
four years ago. 400 MB would be a more appropriate number now, IMHO.
Can we at least default it to not actively limiting anything?
-- Jon Kay pushcache.com jkay@pushcache.com http://www.pushcache.com/ (512) 420-9025 Squid consulting 'push done right.'Received on Tue Dec 18 2001 - 08:35:21 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:14:40 MST