Re: [squid-users] DNS-based reverse proxy peer selection, 2.5 vs 2.6

Sven Edge wrote:
>> From: Amos Jeffries [mailto:squid3@treenet.co.nz]
>> Sven Edge wrote:
>>> Poking around the source for the squid-2.6.STABLE17 release
>> currently in
>>> Fedora, there's appears to be another source of DIRECT_NO besides a
>>> never_direct, in peer_select.c.
>>> http://www.squid-cache.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/squid/src/peer_select.c
>>> I've got version 1.131, where there's an "if
>>> (request->flags.accelerated)" that can cause a DIRECT_NO,
>> but the most
>>> recent version 1.134 has changed that. Not sure what the
>> code's testing
>>> for in either version, but from the commit comment it sounds
>> like up to
>>> now 2.6 was deliberately blocking direct access when in accelerator
>>> mode.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's just a case of waiting for the next release?
>> Aha, sounds like that yes. Fortunately Stable 18 is out already so if
>> the change was included there you could use that one.
>> Otherwise the 2.6 daily snapshot should be stable enough to use, just
>> with a little testing required to be sure of it.
>
> FYI, if
> http://www.squid-cache.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/squid3/src/peer_select.cc
> is where squid 3.0 comes from, that doesn't have the same change
> applied.
>
> Thanks for your help. :)
>

Ouch. Thanks for noticing that one.
I'll have to check up as to whats going on with that change.

Amos

-- 
Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+
There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.