Thank Yuri!! I believe that this post is milestone in for the SSL-BUMP feature. Now the only thing left regarding weird memory leaks is to compare with these technical details: 3.5.27 4.0.24 5.0.0_alpha\head
I cannot test and compare it myself due to the lack of time and CPU but I believe that it will help to clear some doubts about stability of the above versions. All The Bests and Thanks, Eliezer ---- http://ngtech.co.il/lmgtfy/ Linux System Administrator Mobile: +972-5-28704261 Email: elie...@ngtech.co.il From: squid-users [mailto:squid-users-boun...@lists.squid-cache.org] On Behalf Of Yuri Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 19:45 To: Aaron Turner <synfina...@gmail.com> Cc: squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org Subject: Re: [squid-users] SSL intercept in explicit mode AFAIK, SSL bump subsystem uses OpenSSL memory routines. So, first of all, most probably leaks (if any) can be OpenSSL-related, but not squid itself. Now let's see your config snippets. 13.03.2018 23:00, Aaron Turner пишет: "Usually misconfiguration leads to memory overhead." This may be true, but if you look in the list archives a few months ago I basically chased my tail in circles and nobody could tell me what I was doing wrong and so many of the docs are so old that they're worse then useless, they seem to suggest the wrong thing. It was literally leaking GB's worth of RAM. I even disabled all caching and process sizes were growing into the GB's. Turn off ssl-bump and the leak went away. This is what I was using: <SNIP> "C++ seems like a language suitable for firing other people's legs." ***************************** * C++20 : Bug to the future * ***************************** _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
