Re: [squid-users] limiting connections

Carlos Manuel Trepeu Pupo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM, H <hm_at_hm.net.br> wrote:
>> Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2012 18:30, Carlos Manuel Trepeu Pupo wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Amos Jeffries<squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 03.04.2012 02:21, Carlos Manuel Trepeu Pupo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a looooooottttt !! That's what I'm missing, everything work
>>>>>> fine now. So this script can use it cause it's already works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, I need to know if there is any way to consult the active request
>>>>>> in squid that work faster that squidclient !!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ACL types are pretty easy to add to the Squid code. I'm happy to
>>>>> throw an
>>>>> ACL patch your way for a few $$.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which comes back to me earlier still unanswered question about why
>>>>> you want
>>>>> to do this very, very strange thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Amos
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK !! Here the complicate and strange explanation:
>>>>
>>>> Where I work we have 128 Kbps for the use of almost 80 PCs, a few of
>>>> them use download accelerators and saturate the channel. I began to
>>>> use the ACL maxconn but I have still a few problems. 60 of the clients
>>>> are under an ISA server that I don't administrate, so I can't limit
>>>> the maxconn to them like the others. Now with this ACL, everyone can
>>>> download but with only one connection. that's the strange main idea.
>>> what do you mean by only one connection?
>>> if it's under one isa server then all of them share the same external IP.
>>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I am following this thread with mixed feelings of weirdness and
>> admiration ...
>>
>> there are always two ways to reach a far point, it's left around or
>> right around the world, depending on your position one of the ways is
>> always the longer one. I can understand that some without hurry and
>> money issues chose the longer one, perhaps also because of more chance
>> for adventurous happenings, unknown and the unexpected
>>
>> so know I explained in a similar long way what I do not understand, why
>> would you make such a complicated out of scope code, slow, certainly
>> dangerous ... if at least it would be perl, but bash calling external
>> prog and grepping, whow ... when you can solve it with a line of code ?
>>
>> this task would fit pf or ipfw much better, would be more elegant and
>> zillions times faster and secure, not speaking about time investment,
>> how much time you need to write 5/6 keywords of code?
>>
>> or is it for demonstration purpose, showing it as an alternative
>> possibility?
>>
>
> It's great read this. I just know BASH SHELL, but if you tell me that
> I can make this safer and faster... Previously post I talk about
> this!! That someone tell me if there is a better way of do that, I'm
> newer !! Please, if you can guide me
>

who knows ...

what is your purpose? solve bandwidth problems? Connection rate?
Congestion? I believe that limiting to *one* download is not your real
intention, because the browser could still open hundreds of regular
pages and your download limit is nuked and was for nothing ...

what is your operating system?

-- 
H
+55 11 4249.2222