Hi Leif, > If you mean a Web GUI, the answer is "not really". There was one, but > it's really poorly implemented, and not manageable. There are however > very good APIs to implement management tools, and as such, it should be > possible (if there are developers interested to work on it) to implement > much better management GUI (or, even integrate with other Web GUI's).
Ok > No, this is not really possible at this time :/. You might not even know > the size of an object until you have recieved the entire body / > response. So a solution like this would have to be able to write to one > cache, and then move them to another cache, once it knows the object sizes. Ok, understood. Maybe first in RAM and then move to SSD or HDD based on its size. > One idea that people have been looking at is to use FaceBook's > FlashCache system. Ok >> 3) We want to support around 1K users in a forward only proxy, all >> going through a white list with LDAP authentication Any suggestion on >> the hardware? > > Pretty much any modern hardware would easily handle that. More RAM == > better performance typically, I'd go for 8GB minimum, and probably 16GB. Ok > There is no LDAP (or any other) support for authentication at this > point. That code was not open sourced (and it had major issues). The > thought is that someone interested in various authentication schemes > will implement that as plugins :). So to understand, at this moment all users are treated equally? I guess the main problem is as the user wont be authenticated, we wont know who he is, thus bad to track user usage :( >> 5) For other possibilities to come, how about "black listing"? Are >> there any plugins or modules or whatever to provide good quality black >> listing into ATS? How about antivirus / phishing, etc? ICAP? (I'm aware >> ICAP is not currently supported, but anybody working on this?) > > No such plugins exists, yet at least. All of them would most certainly > be doable to implement. There is an "example" blacklist plugin, that > could be a starting point. > > Sorry to not being able to give more positive responses, all your > questions are very good, and something we want to support. It's just not > done yet, with the limited resources that we have. I guess then at this stage better to stick to caching only and leave other stuff to other applications.
