Hi would prefer also the current state of an separate repository, maybe its easy, but i dont now if its possible to move squid's cache, or part of them easily to other locations, or maintain it via the cache manager.
So the current way to store it separate seems for me the best way,
Having the possibility to set debug-options and to move the update-cache to another location via webui could also be a good feature.
with a ui to manage the sources and files but with a more IO-less version to store / access the metadata and even to handle the (update) files properly while downloading and on deletion.
Some points of thats whats missing and may implemented I wrote on the wiki-page.
But I generally would deny to implement any function which breaks current security functions like MITM-ssl or try to implement squid-functionality which is handled inside squid in a better way.
Because of the nature of dynamic content, its dynamic and handled better inside squid and its logic. To implement features, which try to cache social content like the one Fajar mentioned, is a bad way, except the content can be identified and checked for a longer time, otherwise we would implement a second LRU-cache inside squid again and thats already exist.
To cache FB content is almost senseless over a longer time, cause they frequently change their interfaces / paths and naming to prevent f.e. hackers to misuse their platform. with that in mind there is only a small part of content which can be cached and currently is (by squid).
Kind regards,
Ingo
2013/3/7 Bernhard Bitsch Bernhard.Bitsch@gmx.de:
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. März 2013 um 23:08 Uhr Von: "Michael Tremer" michael.tremer@ipfire.org An: "Bernhard Bitsch" Bernhard.Bitsch@gmx.de Cc: "development@lists.ipfire.org" development@lists.ipfire.org Betreff: Re: Aw: Fwd: Update-Accelerator 3.0
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 22:23 +0100, Bernhard Bitsch wrote:
I don't think we should make a new solution based on squid's caching, too.
The existing Update Accelerator is written as a rewriter module to squid.
This model is strong enough to realize the function " caching of frequent file requests ".
When we jump right ahead to discuss technical details, I would like someone to check out if we can easily control the cache to store our files, so that we don't have to manage our own one.
No problem. But this solution must give us th possibility to manage the file store from the WUI. I don't want to miss this feature.
My first idea for a redesign of the accelerator was generalize the conditions for caching.
In the moment all conditions can be described by the pattern
if URI match set of (sample URI's and RE'S)_1 & URI !match set of (sample URIs and RE's)_2 then
check(URI)fi
This can be enhanced if the sets of URI's and RE's are condensed to two regular expressions for each caching class, actually called "vendor".
Then the check for caching is just a loop over all classes.
A second enhancement can be achieved if the most requested checks are made first. The loop terminates by the first match.
The latest version of PCRE comes with a fast JIT compiler for regular expressions. We should take advantage of that instead of running thrugh loops.
The loops are not avoidable by a JIT compiler ( Perl does this too ). The storage application must loop over the various categories. At a short look on PCRE I could not find a possibility for efficiently assembling several single RE's/URI's to one. This is necessary if we want the user to extend the rule set. A main problem in the actual implementation is the extension by adding a new alternative.
- Bernhard
Development mailing list Development@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/development