| 1 |
On Tuesday 18 May 2010 12:59:28 William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 11:30 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 4 |
> > My setup does exactly the same, since squid is running on the same |
| 5 |
> > box. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> How have you configured it? - I wouldn't have though squid suitable |
| 8 |
> considering its designed for a different purpose and so regularly |
| 9 |
> expires items in its cache (i.e., they will be available for a |
| 10 |
> limited time before being cleaned.) If you extend max_age, then it |
| 11 |
> becomes unsuitable as a regular web proxy/cache unless you are |
| 12 |
> running multiple instances. There are posts saying that squid |
| 13 |
> doesnt work well with portage but other than a high miss rate |
| 14 |
> (possibly because the files expired?), no details are given. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In view of what you say, maybe I ought to look into http-replicator. I |
| 17 |
have noticed some quite large files being fetched when I thought they |
| 18 |
ought already to be in squid's cache. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Rgds |
| 22 |
Peter. |
Archives