| 1 |
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 11:30 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 18 May 2010 11:19:06 William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > The advantage of http-replicator is that it is a caching proxy - if |
| 5 |
> > it isnt in the cache, it downloads it and then serves it out to one |
| 6 |
> > or more clients - rsync/FTP/wget/... can just share whats already |
| 7 |
> > there, not go get the file in the first place. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> My setup does exactly the same, since squid is running on the same box. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
How have you configured it? - I wouldn't have though squid suitable |
| 13 |
considering its designed for a different purpose and so regularly |
| 14 |
expires items in its cache (i.e., they will be available for a limited |
| 15 |
time before being cleaned.) If you extend max_age, then it becomes |
| 16 |
unsuitable as a regular web proxy/cache unless you are running multiple |
| 17 |
instances. There are posts saying that squid doesnt work well with |
| 18 |
portage but other than a high miss rate (possibly because the files |
| 19 |
expired?), no details are given. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Squid also seems to store its files named something |
| 22 |
like /var/cache/squid/00/00/000000B9 so its hard to get at them directly |
| 23 |
without having squid to serve them up while the http-replicator cache is |
| 24 |
just the raw files - same as "distfiles" in fact. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
see http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=1138287#1138287 for details |
| 27 |
on http-replicator. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
BillK |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> |
| 33 |
Home in Perth! |
Archives