Re: squid-users-digest Digest V98 #23

From: Edwin Culp <>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:38:05 -0600

Cameron Blackwood wrote:
> Typical isnt it? You post an idea and then find the problems with the
> idea later :). Sheesh.
> Thanks for your ideas about DNS and autoproxy scripts, but I would
> really rather _ONE_ proxy address with no fuss and bother on the
> client or messing with DNS. A proxy end solution is a the best
> solution IMHO.
> I wrote:
> | I cant see any way for squid on proxy1 to send, say 50%, of its misses
> | to proxy 2. I think running a 'nanoproxy' on the 9.20 address that has
> | both real caches as its parent and uses round-robin but no local
> | disk space it self looks too hard (well it would be easy, but I cant
> | see an easy way to do it without using more disk space :( and I just
> | dont want that complexity).
> |
> | My solution is looking like writeing something like pluggw which sits on
> | 9.20 and shares the load by redirecting the requests to 9.10 or 9.11 (rando
> >| mly
> | or something).
> |
> Having a pluggw option will break the access logs. *sigh* Having two
> or even three squids running will make logfile parsing more complex,
> but I can live with that. :)
> Ok, take number two.
> Have proxy1 with proxy2 as its sibling (proxy only) for 5 mins and then
> reconfigure it to have proxy2 (proxy only) as its parent for 5 mins.
> Keep swapping for ever. Problem: I dont trust it not to fail during
> swapover.
> Or.... could have proxy2 get a subset list of objects from proxy1, transfer
> them to itself from proxy1 then remove the objects from the log on proxy1
> and run to nuke then off the disk (or somehow 'purge' them).
> This would migrate objects from proxy1 to proxy2. Proxy1 would then
> use proxy2 as a sibling (proxy-only). Problem: I dont trust it to not
> barf on objects during the clean.
> Or.... Running a third proxy that had both proxy1 and proxy2 as
> proxy-only parents is seeming better and better actually.
> Or.... Run proxy1 and proxy2 as siblings. Have the main proxy address
> move between the two once per day. This means one box will collect a
> day's worth of proxying and then the other will the next day.
> Swap at 4am to minimise connection loss. Problem: cache requests in
> progress at swap time will be lost when the
> IP number switches.
> So, I picked number 3, because it seemed easier and I wasnt convinced
> that I wouldnt lose data using number 1 and it saved programming number 2.
> Number 4 just seemed sad :).
> I ran a proxy on 9.20 with:
> cache_host parent 3128 3130 round-robin proxy-only
> cache_host parent 3128 3130 round-robin proxy-only
> But 9.11 always gets the requests!!

I went through this and could never get round-robin to do what I wanted
it to do.
That is why I went to the DNS solution that I mailed you previously and
the two parents as neighbors to not duplicate files en either disk and
by using the
third squid to access the two parents during the "parsing" of the html
it automatically
distributes the graphics between the number of parents. I have 5 parent
squids set up
for one centralized internal server squid squid and the five parents are
always within
5-10% of each other in disk space although it has never been my goal nor
do I really
care. My reasons are completely different.

Good luck,


> In my logs I get:
> (on 10)
> 884823653.491 0 UDP_MISS/000 32 ICP_QUERY http://web/ - NONE/- -
> 884823655.514 0 UDP_MISS/000 32 ICP_QUERY http://web/ - NONE/- -
> (on 11)
> 884823655.052 0 UDP_MISS/000 32 ICP_QUERY http://web/ - NONE/- -
> 884823657.219 152 TCP_MISS/200 5618 GET http://web/ - DIRECT/web text/html
> and there is nothing I could do to make it distribute the load between
> the two hosts. I tried adding weights. I tried reordering the cache_hosts
> in the config file. I tried removing ICP and everything else I could
> think of, but nothing seemed to be able to get it to round-robin the
> requests (even with the cache_host option of that name), infact it was
> always .11 that did the DIRECT request. I tried default round-robin
> no-query proxy-only in almost every configuration I could think of.
> Bahumbug. Meh. Forget that then.
> Maybe I will end up just having one box proxy .com and the other
> everthing else (I would really rather a more even share). No. Dont
> like that one.
> That leaves having them swap the task of being the main server once a
> night.... its ugly, but atleast it keeps testing my
> switchover/failover capability. :)
> *shrugs*
> Someone must have done this without a cisco redirector. :)
> cheers,
> cam
> --
> / `Rev Dr' skeptic, virtual goth \
> < [+61 3] 9669 4268 BSD Unix, C/C++, genetics, ATM >
> \ The BoM. /
> ____ finger for PGP/Geek Code and stuff ____
> On the side of the software box, in the "System Requirements" section,
> it said "Requires Windows 95 or better". So I installed Linux.
Received on Thu Jan 15 1998 - 07:36:55 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:38:26 MST