Re: [squid-users] Mingw(patch for long file pointers) --with-large-files

The store url mismatch stuff means an object wasn't fetched from cache
but the client won't notice the difference - it'll just be a miss.

I've seen this creep up when storeurl rewrite rules change and
generate different backend names for objects.

As for COSS, I don't suggest running it on Windows. I never tested it.

As for low-priority transfers - if your OS supports setting the TOS on
an already-established TCP connection then it wouldn't be difficult to
patch Squid to reset the TOS for that socket mid-flight on
quick_abort.

2c,

Adrian

2008/8/20 chudy <chudy_Fernandez_at_yahoo.com>:
>
> even using the 2.7 stable 4 version(binary for windows) with newly created
> swap files still the same. i've been using storeurl and aufs feature since
> from the squid head. now that im trying to use coss this warnings came up.
>
> Henrik Nordstrom-5 wrote:
>>
>> sön 2008-08-17 klockan 20:41 -0700 skrev chudy:
>>
>>> one thing i've seeing Warnings about failed to unpack meta data that i've
>>> never seen in aufs.
>>
>> Did you wipe your cache when changing the file size api?
>>
>> 32-bit and 64-bit caches may be incompatible..
>>
>> Regards
>> Henrik
>>
>>
>>
>
> ..or maybe storeurl is not final. bec. storeurl mismatch when the content
> is store in memory and revalidated. but on the second thought no need to use
> storeurl on smaller objects since speed is our concern. bec. this objects
> usually give warnings about meta data are smaller objects. i've tried
> storeurl_access deny smaller_content that are smaller than
> maximum_object_size_in_memory it seems works fine.
>
> but still i need confirmations.
>
> on the other thought i've been thinking if the objects being canceled by the
> clients, i want to continue downloading in squid but in lowest priority of
> bandwidth... is it possible? or any workaround to make it happen?
> quick_abort_max to -1 (correct me if i'm wrong) uses same bandwidth. it will
> be total congestion if these files are videos. its really nice if it will be
> on lowest priority and what makes ever better if the client retry to
> download the priority back to normal.
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Mingw%28patch-for-long-file-pointers%29---with-large-files-tp19025674p19070570.html
> Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Received on Mon Aug 25 2008 - 08:58:06 MDT