Re: [squid-users] cache_peer weighting

Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Ok cool. Now, the techie questions:
>
> * according to the draft, the port isn't used as part of the hash, is this
> right?

Indeed; and there's no newer version of the draft, unfortunately.
According to CARP draft v1, the only place the port is stored, is in the
ASCII Proxy Array Membership Table.
For anyone who hasn't seen the draft, it's available at
http://www.linofee.org/~jel/da/mmb99/7/CarpSpec.html

>
> * is just adding the port to the hash the "right way" of doing it?
> (its a hash, so you want to create even distributions..)

I think it's important to get the port involved in the hashing as early
on as possible, as the CARP mechanism is based off adding a URL hash +
proxy hash together to achieve a high score. Equally, there's the issue
of getting a wide enough hash distribution; however, looking at the data
I'm logging, with the combination of URL+proxy hash, the results are
extremely wide and varying, so I don't think it is breaking anything -
that said, it is 7am, and I am tired, so hopefully someone else can
agree/disagree on this point.

> * do people have a problem with this going into squid, with relevant documentation
> being written about how CARP has been "extended" like this?
>

-- 
Tony Dodd, Systems Administrator
Last.fm | http://www.last.fm
Karen House 1-11 Baches Street
London N1 6DL
check out my music taste at:
http://www.last.fm/user/hawkeviper