RE: What if Squid goes down?

From: David J N Begley <>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:42:11 +1100 (EST)

On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Umar Goldeli wrote:

> Why not just use a proxy.pac with several options etc... if the proxy
> becomes unavailable - go DIRECT for a while until problems are fixed... or
> of course, point to a different proxy.. totally transparent too (apart
> from the fact that users have to config the proxy.pac file).

From what others have reported here, I see little real benefit to the use
of "automatic proxy configuration" (ie., "proxy.pac"); the main argument
in its favour is that you (the admin) have control over what proxies the
user may use, and this may change between sessions - less configuration
problems for the end-user.

However, if browsers keep suffering problems with this method, and the
method remains something limited to MSIE/Netscape-derived products, then
the benefits seem to slowly disappear (for me, anyway).

I force all our 14,000+ users to just manually configure their browsers
with the proxy settings; the benefits this way are:

- all browsers are incredibly similar in this regard (with some small

- the user has to enter the initial "proxy.pac" details anyway so it's
  not much of a stretch to enter the other details; and,

- it basically works! :-)

Once you settle on a framework "squid.conf" setup and a stable server
(hardware, operating system, &c.), the machine just runs and runs and
runs... no worries (at least, ours does - the normal 1.1.18, not NOVM).

Transparent proxying is the next interesting project (not before next year
though); after all, reducing the client configuration to zero and
placing the intelligence into the network infrastructure is "the way it's
meant to be" (IMHO)...


Received on Tue Dec 09 1997 - 17:50:27 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:37:53 MST