[squid-users] Re: Squid3 issues

From: Linda Walsh <squid-user_at_tlinx.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:43:32 -0700

Gmail wrote:
> I have used many softwares, packages, compiled stuff for years, never
> ever had an experience such as this one, it's a package full of
> headaches, and problem after problem, And to be honest the feedback I
> get is always blaming other things, why can't you people just admit that
> Squid doesn't work at all, and you are not providing any help
> whatsoever, as if you expect everyone to be an expert.

----
 I've only seen one post by you on this list -- and that was about
increasing your linux file descriptors at process start time in linux
-- not something in the squid software -- but something you do in linux
before you call squid.  It *** SHOULD*** be in your squid's
/etc/init.d/squid startup script. --  you should see a command "ulimit -n
<number>".
I have "ulimit -n 4096" in my squid's rc script.
It is a builtin in the "bash" script.  I don't know where else it is
documented, but if you use the linux-standard shell, "bash", it should
just work.  "-n" sets the number of open file descriptors.
> I uninstalled the version that was packaged with Ubuntu hardy, I am
> trying to compile it so I won't have the same problem, with the file
> descriptors, I followed exactly the suggestions in the configure --help
> menu, yet I am getting an error, like Compile cannot create executable,
> or something to that effect.
----
Maybe you should try a distribution where it is 1) known to work, or
2) already has a pre-compiled binary.
    Try opensuse.org. It's what I use.  It works flawlessly out of the
box. (from http://www.opensuse.org/en/).
    Everyone will have their favorite and tell you how well it works.
That one is mine (for the nonce).  Been using it for several years -- the
fact that they have gotten seed money from Microsoft -- means also that
they have worked to add support for the new Vista/Win7 networking stacks
which supports various advanced device functionality (either a pain in the
ass or a bonus depending on whether or not you have such equipment and
want it to work).  
    The fact that it is in there doesn't mean you can't turn it off and
delete it (which I did).  Now am working to turn it back on as I get some
win-media enabled devices on my network. (My new TV speaks those protos!
(but doesn't work over squid!) -- but my new Blu Ray DVD player (Sony),
used proxy autodetect (http://wpad/wpad.dat), and worked through my squid
proxy the first try!...was quite pleased with that.
So....
> After three weeks I managed to get my clients to have access to the
> internet, and many applications didn't work, such as Yahoo, Msn, Steam
> and so on, when I ask for help, nobody has an answer including some
> members of the team.
-----
Some of these are problems - you have to contact the application
writers and get them to use HTTP PROXIES -- because they IGNORE your
HTTP_PROXY settings and attempt to go direct.
    This is due to no fault of squid, but the misbehaving applications.
They only way to proxy them would be to use a transparent proxy which both
a pain, and maybe not worth the bother, as you have to let them connect to
any address at port "whatever" not all use port 80. 
    Worse -- not all use TCP -- some use UDP which squid doesn't handle at
all.  In those cases, all you can do is setup NAT on your firewall and let
them talk through it.  Not great for security, but the writers of those
apps don't care about your security -- just their apps.  So you conform to
them or you don't run their apps -- nothing to do with squid.
    None of this has anything to do with squid people -- nearly all your
problems are with the apps you are running -- they write their apps NOT to
work with proxies.  When they do that -- they are not going to work with
squid. 
    Only well-behaved apps that work through some proxy (ANY PROXY!), will
work with squid.  Those that are ill behaved are just poorly behaved
children that refuse to 'get with the program'...  
Whatcha gonna do?
> If anybody can prove me wrong:
Consider yourself "proven wrong"....you are pointing your fingers in the
wrong place.
*peace*, Linda
Received on Thu Mar 18 2010 - 22:43:41 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Mar 19 2010 - 12:00:05 MDT