Re: [squid-users] what are the Pros and cons filtering urls using squid.conf?

On 06/11/2013 11:57 AM, Jose-Marcio Martins wrote:
> On 06/11/2013 02:36 PM, Marcus Kool wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So my question is... a more direct and precise question, just about ufdbGuard. While ufdbGuard
>>> reloads its URL database, does it pauses answering queries ? If yes, how long does it takes ?
>>
>> ufdbGuard does not pause answering queries from Squid during a reload since that would pause Squid
>> and is considered an interruption of service.
>>
>> ufdbGuard releases the current URL database, loads a new configuration and loads a new URL database
>> in 10 seconds on average.
>> ufdbGuard has a configurable behaviour in this 10-second interval and does either one of:
>> - allow all URLs; send immediately an "OK" back to Squid (default)
>> - allow all URLs but also introduce artifical delays when sending replies back to Squid.
>> The effect is that traffic is slowed down and the total number of unfiltered URLs is reduced.
>> - deny all URLs; send immediately and "not OK" back to Squid. The end user receives a message like
>> "try again in a few moments".
>
>
> Yes, there IS an "interruption of service" because during 10 seconds ufdbGuard doesn't work as it should do : URL filtering based on the URL database.
>
> You should use "degraded service" instead of "interruption of service".

In the first part of this thread the discussion was about interruption of service of the web proxy.
With ufdbGuard as URL filter solution there is no interruption of the service of Squid.
And of course, when ufdbGuard reloads, the URL filtering service temporarily degrades.

FYI: version 1.31 of ufdbGuard - soon to be released - makes the first step towards no degradation during reload by supporting dynamic URL categories.
The dynamics URL categories are loaded while the old ones are still being used and in a split-second the new table is made active without any service interruption whatsoever.

Marcus
Received on Tue Jun 11 2013 - 17:42:59 MDT