Re: eventual incorporation of push and hint cache into Squid-HEAD?

On Wednesday 21 November 2001 18.17, Jon Kay wrote:

> I propose following a merge path like cache digests: first I'll make
> sure it works with tests I can run.  Then, if/when I get to merging it
> into main branch, the default will be to configure it off.  Once it
> has proved itself, we can change it to be default on.
>
> Does that make sense?

Very much so. Usually how things evolve.

> > Key question: What is the impact for people not needing push and/or hint
> > caching?
>
> Good question.
>
> Almost nothing for push.
>
> If hint caching is off by default, then while that's true, then the
> impact is quite minimal.

Define "quite minimal". Is there any reason to why there should be any impact
at all when the feature is not enabled?

> If hint caching is ever on by default, then people not running clouds
> will see a slightly greater than cache-digest-like loss in
> performance, and a waste of O(100M) of disk (e.g., a about a percent
> of the average cache size).

Average cloud cache size I presume? Or the local cache size?

For a small member in a large cloud the difference is substantial.

> Re licensing/patent issues, there are none.  It is already GPL.   And
> we hold no patents.  We do not believe in the value of patents to
> startups, and we do believe in Open Source.

Good. We are on the same level then.

Software/algorithm patents are generally a very bad thing in my opinion, more
so in the twisted direction patent requirements are turning, and will in the
long run cost human mankind a lot in lost evolution of ideas I think. In my
opiniton the only valid use of a software/algorithm patent is to ensure that
it does not get patented by a twisted entity. New ideas florish while they
are new and interesting, and a patent issue is a very good way to deflect the
interest from the idea, making it starve by forcing the ones not having the
patent but interested by the idea to find an alternative (and often not as
good) solution that avoids the patent.

The worst situation is when someone manages to patent something that is in
widespread use before the patent has been issued, or in some cases even
filed... The cost/risk in questioning an invalid patent hold by a entity with
with good fact-bending lawyers is quite substantial, even if the patent
clearly is invalid to anyone involved.

Regards
Henrik
Received on Wed Nov 21 2001 - 11:12:17 MST