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

Below you will find my personal comments on a few hand-picked thoughts
(from various posters) that I consider important on this thread:

On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 08:44 -0800, Michael Puckett wrote:
> If there is one killer app that tops all other functionality
> additions it would be to multi-thread Squid so that it can
> perform on multi-cores.

Ability to perform on multiple cores is a performance/scalability
optimization. We obviously do want Squid to perform and scale better,
and are working on that.

Squid3 already has several mechanisms that would make such work easier.
Folks that need faster Squid, including CPU-core scalability
optimizations, should consider contributing time or money to the cause,
keeping in mind that it is a serious project and it will require
cooperation with other developers and projects.

On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 11:26 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Again, parity with -2 isn't enough; why would someone pay for
> something they can already get in -2 if it meets their needs?

Nobody should pay for something they do not need. However, any sponsor
should consider the long-term sustainability of an old or new feature
they rely on: Will the feature I need be included in the next major
Squid version? Do I need cooperation and trust of Squid developers? Do I
want a fork dedicated to my needs? These questions are often as
important as the "How much would it cost me to make Squid do Foo by the
end of the month?" question.

Currently, sponsors have significant impact on Squid direction. There is
a lot of implied responsibility that comes with that influence. Please
use your power with care.

On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 01:15 +0000, Dodd, Tony wrote:
> development on -3 seems entirely ad-hoc, with no direction; whereas -2
> development is entirely focused [...]. I could be talking entirely
> out of turn here though, as I haven't seen a -3 roadmap.

> The second thing [...] the majority of squid developers don't seem to
> get, is that the big users of squid are businesses.

> The truth of it is, as much as you guys tell yourselves that
> your userbase is people who run one or two cache boxes in their
> basements to cache their lan internet access, and that there's no money
> in squid, ...

> I've spoken to Adrian too many times to count on two hands about this
> whole thing, and if you guys are trying to re-invent the wheel, you
> may as well stop now.

I am not sure how to say this the right way, but when your opinion is
based on a single and often extremely biased source of information, your
perception of reality becomes so distorted, that it is very difficult
for others to respond.

Your assumptions about the "majority of squid developers" are simply
wrong.

Believe it or not, we understand your situation fairly well. Nobody I
know is asking you to upgrade to Squid3, for example.

What I would suggest is that you make a fundamental choice: Do you want
to collaborate with the Squid project (as a whole)? If yes, we will do
our best to address your short-term and long-term needs. If no, I am
sure your dedicated developer will do his best to address your needs
within or outside the project.

Collaborating with an open source project is difficult because you have
to cooperate with others and balance different needs, all while
struggling with inefficiencies of a weak decision-making structure.
Whether collaboration benefits are worth the trouble, is something you
have to decide. I certainly hope they are.

On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 18:17 +0900, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > A killer app for -3 would be multi-core support
>
> 12 months away on my draft Squid-2 roadmap, if there was enough
> commercial interest.

11 months away on Squid-3 roadmap if there is enough commercial
interest. And I will also throw in a 90% chance that the feature will
also be in Squid4 without a major porting effort. Wait, wait, and a 10%
off coupon!

But, really, this is _not_ the way Squid features should be planned or
sponsorship should be solicited, and I trust Adrian knows that.

On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 11:26 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> While I'm in a mood for ruffling feathers (*grin*),
> it might also help to have the "core" discussions in public

Discussions that may benefit from public input should, and usually do,
happen on squid-dev or squid-users, even if they start on squid-core.
That covers the majority of the topics. There is not much "how the Core
should respond?", "dirty laundry", "personal", or "offensive to
somebody" stuff that we have to keep private. Any multi-person
organization has these trust layers, naturally.

I hope the above comments will clarify my personal position. I would
love to work with more users that, besides pulling hard in their
direction, would think of the project as a whole, accepting the fact
that Squid will always try to satisfy several conflicting needs.

The list of "missing" Squid3 features was a useful outcome of this
thread. I will make sure those wishes are added to Squid3 roadmap.

If you have other specific suggestions on where and how the project
should move, there are developers willing to listen.

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Fri Mar 07 2008 - 10:46:32 MST