Re: Squid-3.2 status update

On 7/5/2012 4:18 AM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 07/04/2012 05:34 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 05.07.2012 10:00, Alex Rousskov wrote:
<SNIP>
>> It does that now. The "no harm" means we can't re-write the request
>> headers to something we are not sure about and would actively cause
>> problems if we got it wrong.
>> The current state is that Squid goes DIRECT, instead of through peers.
>> Breaking interception+cluster setups.
>
> That last part means "do harm" to those admins who discover nonworking
> setups that used to work fine (from their perspective). I understand
> that your definition of "harm" may be different from theirs. This
> conflict should be resolved by configuration knobs IMO.
>
>
>> cache_peer relay is almost completely "disabled" for some major sites.
>> Everything else works well.
>
> Well, we can wait for somebody to complain about that and then decide
> what to do, I guess. With some luck, nobody will complain.
>
> I certainly do not insist on treating this issue as a blocker for v3.2
> "stable" designation; only suggesting ways to close it.
>
+1
not a developer but if a cache_peer cannot be accessed on an intercept
mode it's pretty nasty.

is there any way to make a "cache_peer" work in intercept mode at all?
or it's a fatal bug that awaits to be fixed?

Eliezer
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex.
>

-- 
Eliezer Croitoru
https://www1.ngtech.co.il
IT consulting for Nonprofit organizations
eliezer <at> ngtech.co.il