Re: [squid-users] Squid-2, Squid-3, roadmap

Hi,

We've been testing Squid 3. 2.X is out of the question since we need ICAP.
Our 3.0STABLE1 build with backported icap-related patches from 3.0-current
is stable enough for us (no crashes, no weird behaviour). What I would
personally like to see is full HTTP 1.1 compliance and a more complete ICAP
implementation.
However, for our own very limited use of a HTTP proxy, Squid-3 fits the
bill rather nicely. Thanks !

Best,

François

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:36:50 +0900
Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm quite disappointed in the lack of feedback from the community over this.
> Its hard to figure out what people want if noone speaks up, so this is your
> time to speak up.
>
>
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > Hello Squid folk,
> >
> > I maintain Yahoo!'s internal build of Squid, and serve as a resource
> > for the various Y! properties that use it.
> >
> > We currently only use Squid-2, and don't have plans to migrate to
> > Squid-3; although ESI, ICAP as well as eCAP look interesting, there
> > are too many critical features (e.g., collapsed fowarding, refresh
> > stale hit, full Vary/ETag support, not to mention several things in
> > 2.7DEVEL0) missing for us to use it. Additionally, anecdotal evidence
> > shows that it's still too unstable and slow for production use where
> > these aspects are important; or at least, there is enough doubt about
> > them to make switching too risky for too little benefit.
> >
> > I know that there's a lot of water under the bridge WRT -2 vs -3, and
> > don't want to stir up what must seem like a very old discussion to the
> > developers. However, there's not much clarity about the situation WRT
> > 2 vs 3, and we've been in this state for a long period of time.
> >
> > Specifically, a few questions for the developers of Squid:
> >
> > * Besides the availability of *CAP and ESI -- which are very
> > specialised, and of interest only to a subset of Squid users -- is
> > there any user-visible benefit to switching to -3?
> >
> > * What do the developers consider to be a success metric for -3?
> > I.e., when will maintenance on -2 stop?
> >
> > * Until that time, what is the development philosophy for Squid-2?
> > Will it be only maintained, or will new features be added / rewrites
> > be done as (possibly sponsored) resources are available? Looking at
> > <http://wiki.squid-cache.org/RoadMap/Squid2 >, it seems to be the latter;
> > is that the correct interpretation?
> >
> > * If that success metric is not reached, what is the contingency
> > plan?
> >
> > * How will these answers change if a substantial number of users
> > willingfully choose to stay on -2 (and not just because they neglect
> > to update their software)?
> >
> >
> > Also, a few questions for -users:
> >
> > * Who is using -3 in production now? How are you using it (load,
> > use case, etc.) and what are your experiences?
> >
> > * Who is planning to use -3 soon? Why?
> >
> > * Who is not planning to use -3 soon? Why not?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Tue Mar 04 2008 - 10:53:14 MST