Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
I'll look into it, thanks.
Would you be able to help me write out some actual documentation outlining what
ZPH
does and how it works? The documentation is very, very lacking.
Thanks!
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 8 Jul 2009 at 2:48
The patch makes sense if zph_local is to be overridden by the sibling/parent
settings. Unfortunately the zph documentation doesn't cover which order this
should
all be abused in.
How should we change the configuration documentation to make the zph selection
algorithm clearer?
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 8 Jul 2009 at 3:00
Hi Adrian,
I'll submit proposed documentation update for you soon.
Regardt
Original comment by regar...@gmail.com
on 8 Jul 2009 at 8:38
Wiki or as part of source?
Original comment by regar...@gmail.com
on 8 Jul 2009 at 8:42
Let's put it in cf.data.pre for now.
I'd eventually really like to see the zph specific code moved out into a
separate module instead of being inserted
in-line in the client_side code - it'd then be a no-brainer to document it
there. :)
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 8 Jul 2009 at 10:07
Hi Adrian,
Review and let me know if you think it needs a lot more.
OT: Know if anyone has been working on getting lusca debian(.deb) ready?
Regardt
Original comment by regar...@gmail.com
on 9 Jul 2009 at 9:28
Attachments:
Patch committed - revision 14164.
Thanks!
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 9 Jul 2009 at 10:23
Also - re debian package - please ask on the lusca-users@ mailing list.
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 9 Jul 2009 at 10:24
CD&peer hit still doesn't mark.
if (!isTcpHit(http->log_type))
tos = 0;
isTcpHit is all about local hits. Therefore tos always zero if local MISS and
peer HIT
I would like to put local on first before peer, CMIIW if squid has the local
content then no query to peer to be made.
Original comment by chudy.fernandez
on 21 Apr 2011 at 5:39
Attachments:
Oh, I see now. So when there's a miss but it's a cache-peer fetch hit?
Hm, it's still different though as it's going over the network. What about we
create another zph TOS match for that case?
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 9 Jul 2011 at 12:27
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
regar...@gmail.com
on 8 Jul 2009 at 2:24Attachments: