On Thu, Nov 22, 2007, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On tor, 2007-11-22 at 10:57 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
> > Three cheers for Henrik! :-)
> >
> > Any chance of a 3.1 port soon?
>
> We need a bit of discussion on whats the best approach on how to solve
> Bug #7 first.
>
> I.e. should we do like I did for Squid-2, rewriting the entry, or should
> we jump directly to step 2 modifying the store interface allowing only
> the header to be rewritten.
>
> It's not very nice to rewrite the whole entry when it's a 6GB dvd
> image... puts quite some strain on the disk I/O...
Hm, gotta be careful with this, as I'm about to start handling caching
youtube and similarly large files in Squid-2. I'd rather not have to rewrite
all these objects!
Could you make this stuff optional at all at runtime? I don't mind adding
in "fix the store layer a little more" and separating out the headers and
object data into seperate 'parts' so things can be rewritten more easily.
I'm just a bit wary about these sorts of temporary fixes going into the
codebase without fixing the actual root cause - we'll just end up creating
more work for ourselves in the long run if we ever want to make things
"better".
Adrian
-- - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid Support -Received on Wed Nov 21 2007 - 23:47:15 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 12:00:05 MST