On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 01:37:13PM +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 12/05/11 08:18, Dave Dykstra wrote:
...
So its a choice of being partially vulnerable to slow loris style
attacks (timeouts etc prevent full vulnerability) or packet
amplification on a massive scale.
Just to make sure I
On 11/05/11 04:34, Dave Dykstra wrote:
On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 02:32:22PM +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 07/05/11 08:54, Dave Dykstra wrote:
Ah, but as explained here
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200903/0509.html
this does risk using up a lot of memory because squid
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 09:05:08PM +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 11/05/11 04:34, Dave Dykstra wrote:
On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 02:32:22PM +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 07/05/11 08:54, Dave Dykstra wrote:
Ah, but as explained here
On 12/05/11 08:18, Dave Dykstra wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 09:05:08PM +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 11/05/11 04:34, Dave Dykstra wrote:
On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 02:32:22PM +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 07/05/11 08:54, Dave Dykstra wrote:
Ah, but as explained here
On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 02:32:22PM +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 07/05/11 08:54, Dave Dykstra wrote:
Ah, but as explained here
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200903/0509.html
this does risk using up a lot of memory because squid keeps all of the
read-ahead data in
Ah, but as explained here
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200903/0509.html
this does risk using up a lot of memory because squid keeps all of the
read-ahead data in memory. I don't see a reason why it couldn't instead
write it all out to the disk cache as normal and then
On 07/05/11 08:54, Dave Dykstra wrote:
Ah, but as explained here
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200903/0509.html
this does risk using up a lot of memory because squid keeps all of the
read-ahead data in memory. I don't see a reason why it couldn't instead
write it all
