Re: maximum_object_size

From: Henrik Nordstrom <>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 23:46:11 +0100

Partly agreed. The maximum_object_size default of 4MB is quite likely
too small by todays standards. There is however a handful of technical
reasons to why the size limit is there. Consider for example what
happens if there is an object size larger than the cache size?

The [request|reply]_*_max_size parameters is access control. Completely
different story. These are nowdays unlimited by default as it is not our
job to police the use of the Internet, and we have no technical reasons
to limit these.

The maximum_object_size is finetuning of the cache policy and avoidance
of too large objects for the cache to handle.


Jon Kay wrote:

> There is nothing wrong with having a maximum storable object size control
> per se. The problem is that it is very difficult behavior for users to
> even notice, much less understand. That's why it's better to have that
> kind of size control be an up-front limitation. Which is why we already
> have
> a zillion up-front size limit parameters. If we keep it, it should at
> least
> default to no limitation. But I think it'll just confuse people. Better
> to
> take it out and let people use the easier-to-understand
> [request|reply]_*_max_size
> variables.
> --
> Jon Kay
> (512) 420-9025
> Squid consulting 'push done right.'
Received on Sun Dec 16 2001 - 15:48:09 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:14:40 MST