Hi Henrik,
At 23.15 27/02/2007, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
tis 2007-02-27 klockan 22:07 +0100 skrev Henrik Nordstrom:
But regardless of this I can confirm that Negotiate seems to be broken..
Has been broken a while..
2.6.CVS broken
2.6.STABLE9 broken
2.6.STABLE8 broken
2.6.STABLE7
Hi Henrik,
At 23.53 27/02/2007, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
tis 2007-02-27 klockan 23:15 +0100 skrev Henrik Nordstrom:
Looking. Ah, it's due to Negotiate returning a final response to the
client, and this confuses the twisted logics here even further..
cleaning up to untwist the FINISHED/DONE
tis 2007-02-27 klockan 21:40 -0700 skrev Alex Rousskov:
Thanks for the explanation and snipped details. Unfortunately, it looks
like the problem is back and has even become worse as I see more locks
(from other developers) getting stuck now:
cvs rtag: [21:28:08] waiting for rousskov's lock
ons 2007-02-28 klockan 13:01 +0800 skrev Adrian Chadd:
I'm not sure to be honest; but do you think it'd be a good idea just to shift
this
development tree stuff back to a seperate repository or server over at TMF?
It sounds like it'll be less of a headache now.
The main reason why SF is
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for your answers. As I can understand you are talking about
the squid4 project. If you want an independent opinion, I believe that
it is not good idea to start striping the squid2.
You will get again the same mistakes done at squid3. For a such project
start from
Hi Alex,
Alex Rousskov wrote:
I have committed your change, simplified virgin body buffer maintenance
(in hope to minimize the number of similar bugs), and probably fixed a
bug with handling of post-preview 204 replies.
Yes I know. I am watching the branch for changes and additions...
The
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
tis 2007-02-27 klockan 21:40 -0700 skrev Alex Rousskov:
Thanks for the explanation and snipped details. Unfortunately, it looks
like the problem is back and has even become worse as I see more locks
(from other developers) getting stuck now:
cvs rtag: [21:28:08]
Is squid3 faster or slower than squid2?
_J
Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/27/07 5:04 PM
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 13:27 +0200, Tsantilas Christos wrote:
In the other hand I need a proxy with an icap client because I spent
time (and continue spending) to an icap related project. Squid3 has a
tor 2007-03-01 klockan 01:25 +1300 skrev Amos Jeffries:
It might actually be the cvsmerge script.. the following line isn't
exactly kind to CVS..
o Check if there is any pending changes in the repository
diffl=`eecvs -q rdiff -kk -r ${mergetag} -r ${mergefrom} ${module} | head |
wc
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 09:19 -0500, Jeremy Hall wrote:
Is squid3 faster or slower than squid2?
I will be doing performance tests with Squid3 shortly. Will post.
Alex.
Hi Alex,
Alex Rousskov wrote:
I agree that many Squid3 parts should be fixed, polished, or thrown
away. However, I think that we should focus on making Squid3 stable
first, and the performance/polishing work you are discussing should be
done for v3.1.
I am not
Tsantilas Christos wrote:
As an example of such changes I am attaching the rewritten
parseHttpRequest, prepareTransparentURL and prepareAcceleratedURL
Sorry to all
the code I send in previous mail will not compile. I am sending it
again. Needs some more testing to be sure that it is OK
Hi Henrik,
At 10.34 28/02/2007, Guido Serassio wrote:
Hi Henrik,
At 23.53 27/02/2007, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
tis 2007-02-27 klockan 23:15 +0100 skrev Henrik Nordstrom:
Looking. Ah, it's due to Negotiate returning a final response to the
client, and this confuses the twisted logics here
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 20:48 +0200, Tsantilas Christos wrote:
As an example of such changes I am attaching the rewritten
parseHttpRequest, prepareTransparentURL and prepareAcceleratedURL
A second example: again In parseHttpRequest we have the HttpParser
struct which we are using it to parse
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 17:54 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
I think we should start from stating the goal of these changes in
Squid
3.0. If they are for performance improvement, I would suggest waiting
until v3.1 or until performance tests indicate that we must improve
Squid 3 performance
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007, Robert Collins wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 17:54 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
I think we should start from stating the goal of these changes in
Squid
3.0. If they are for performance improvement, I would suggest waiting
until v3.1 or until performance tests
Hi,
I've again been bitten by the by default Squid doesn't support methods
for application X where X is almost always Subversion.
What do people think about:
* adding in the Subversion methods in by default?
* as a more long-term goal, adding in an option that allows Squid to handle
any
Something I've been meaning to do for a while is assemble a knowledge base of
common specific problems. Kind of like the FAQ, but less how do I do this?
and more It broke like X, how do I fix it?
The first article:
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/KnowledgeBase/NoNTLMGroupAuth
It might get merged
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 10:35 +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
It might actually be the cvsmerge script.. the following line isn't
exactly kind to CVS..
o Check if there is any pending changes in the repository
diffl=`eecvs -q rdiff -kk -r ${mergetag} -r ${mergefrom} ${module} | head |
wc -l`
Something I've been meaning to do for a while is assemble a knowledge base
of
common specific problems. Kind of like the FAQ, but less how do I do
this?
and more It broke like X, how do I fix it?
The first article:
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/KnowledgeBase/NoNTLMGroupAuth
It might get
20 matches
Mail list logo
