Re: [squid-users] limiting connections

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

>
> --
> H
> +55 11 4249.2222
>
Received on Wed Apr 04 2012 - 19:34:07 MDT