RE: [squid-users] Pessimal behavior with Windows Update (Long)

At 01:20 PM 6/29/2005, Chris Robertson wrote:

>I'm was not trying to make any less of your suggestions, and/or problems.
>My intention was just to provide an alternate solution.

I understand. However, I think that -- given the prevalence of Microsoft
clients and the huge amount of traffic generated by patching them --
inability to configure a Squid cache that works effectively with
Windows Update should be considered to be a serious bug. There is nothing
MORE ubiquitous on the Internet than Windows machines, and any software
that does not work effectively with it can be justifiably said to have a
severe problem. Squid 3.0 seems to be fairly far from release, and it is not
practical to wait for it or a good idea to rush the release. Changes to fix
the problems should be added to Squid 2.5 as well as 3.0.

A cache shouldn't melt down when a patching mechanism incrementally
fetches a large file. Nor should it leave you, as the only alternative,
having to avoid caching the file at all when many clients will be downloading
it. I don't know about you, but I can't afford to spend several hundred dollars
per machine on extra RAM so as to run a second copy of Squid on every one. Nor
should I have to spend even more money on supplemental servers. The thing
to do is fix the code.

Just my $0.02.

--Brett
Received on Wed Jun 29 2005 - 14:45:05 MDT