Re: [squid-users] cache_peer weighting

Tony Dodd wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:33:26 -0700
> Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 23:31 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>> Squid is a little different in its peer requirements. The peering
>>> needs to be anchored off the name= parameter or in the absence of
>>> that the peer ip/fqdn given. In squid THAT must be unique for
>>> several other indexes similar to this.
>>> There is no requirement in squid that the IP/http-port combo be
>>> unique because the IP/icp-port combo may be the difference.
>
> Agreed; the odd thing is, there is no error handling in this case.
> Perhaps it would be worth giving some visible messages within cache.log
> too, if you have multiple cache_peers specified with the same IP,
> taking part in a CARP array. Currently, it's only looking to make sure
> there is a name= to make them distinct as far as I can tell. I've
> modified my code so that it now hashes on names if "carp_hash_name on"
> is in the squid.conf. It will fall back to the old method if it is
> either off, missing, or if p->name is empty.
>
>
>> What if Squid is not the only device doing CARP in a given
>> environment? It may be important to allow the administrator to
>> configure Squid hashing to match that of other devices so "extending"
>> the hashing specs may require an option to turn the extensions off.
>
> Agreed; as per this, the default option is for this extension to be
> disabled by default, and must be explicitly enabled within the
> squid.conf using the carp_hash_name config option.
>
> http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2153 is updated with
> the latest patch.
>

Looks good. Just missing a cf.data.pre write-up for squid.conf
Adrians call on the commit though.

Amos

-- 
Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17 or 3.0STABLE1.
There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.