[squid-users] Squid4 has extremely low hit ratio due to lacks of ignore-no-cache

[Yuri Voinov]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
 
I can not understand why so much dropped for caching of https. This is
very critical in the modern conditions, for obvious reasons. In older
versions of the same for this to work. And it does not have the
slightest desire to write or use a third-party services or crutches. As
well as the search for workaround for functionality that worked yesterday.

26.10.15 2:15, Eliezer Croitoru пишет:
> On 25/10/2015 21:28, Yuri Voinov wrote:
>> It's not about that. It's about the fact that, with exactly the same
>> parameters caching and maintaining the cache at the same URL, which I
>> used to get 85% cache hit, I am now, with a SQUID 4, I get 0%. That's
all.
>
> OK then, if it's that important for you and it worth money for the
business you are running\working for think about writing an ECAP module
or an ICAP service that will do this same thing and sometimes will do
more then you are asking for.
>
> I didn't mentioned this before but you if you are using a non tproxy
environment you can use two squid instances to get the same effect.
> You would be able to asses the network stress you have and decide
which of the solution is for you.
> Maybe you are already know the article I wrote at:
> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/ConfigExamples/DynamicContent/Coordinator
> Which you can use to use a similar thing.
>
> From my side of the picture I think you are over-simplifying the issue.
> I cannot speak for everyone and I know that there are other opinions
about this subject and similar other but, I can say for sure that from
what I have seen, squid have had many issues which resulted from the
basic fact the it was something like a "geany in lamp" project which
many just asked for something they needed.
> If you do not know, some literally *hate* squid.
> One of the reasons is that it has a huge list of open bugs which are
waiting for someone to find them attractive enough to write a patch for
them.
>
> And yes with exactly the same parameters which resulted in 85% cache
hit you are now getting 0% like you should have been.
> I am not sure how many users are happy with this change and I
encourage others to write their opinions and ideas about it.
>
> I am staying with my suggestions for a set of solutions for the
specific issue.
>
> I am not the greatest squid programmer but if someone will fund my
time I will might be able to write a module that will do just what you
and maybe others want. And if I might add that it's like in any other
software, you have an API and you can use it. if you think it's
important file a bug and send your question to the squid-dev list with
hope that you will get some answers even if these will not be to your
liking.
>
> All The Bests,
> Eliezer
>
> * Somebody told me on squid once something like "I am sharing your
sorrow" while I was very happy with it.
> _______________________________________________
> squid-users mailing list
> squid-users at lists.squid-cache.org
> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
 
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWLUE2AAoJENNXIZxhPexGW9QH/2MsuMAC/LKhrwnh23grQ20a
2aOvJhvx8Pl8umxjrk0JJf+J9jLlRYQ8SIXcpGe8ETv/1whchqo/Dh2hz0Ib79Qv
dK5Vm+vFKbosL7foElSQgPClhF/cDuXrJonSvUsZ68CeZA8VIy5zUx+KtGAsPTEJ
3H4fbQVX6DF5HViCHln400g0YFTXYAx3VOC4K8EBKIjwLG8RZdBio8aCA2uoJ7Fx
vFY98rpyYS44pKEXfs0QoQzyuu3tQLosCJjc01aOqtF1iI8plWWN4lJlViyzBr4p
IH5rDRkBeldJw/0Irs9nwApwUGumWilLCR1k5c196LiibrD1rMqRNRya0eRFHbI=
=ZrNZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----