Re: [squid-users] what are the Pros and cons filtering urls using squid.conf?

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:34:11 -0300
Marcus Kool <marcus.kool_at_urlfilterdb.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 06/09/2013 12:59 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > On 06/09/2013 03:29 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> >
> >> >Would you prefer a filtering based on a reload or a persistent DB
> >> >like mongoDB or tokyo tyrant?
> > I would prefer to improve Squid so that reconfiguration has no
> > disrupting effects on traffic, eliminating the "reload is
> > disruptive for Squid but not for my ICAP service" difference.
> >
> > There are many important differences between ACL lists, eCAP
> > adapters, and ICAP services. Reconfiguration handling should not be
> > one of them.
>
> Eliezer seems to be concerned about what happens during
> reconfiguration, and he has a point.
> A Squid reconfigure simply stops the web proxy service for some time,
> while a reconfigure of a 3rd party component (URL redirector, ICAP
> or other helper) _may_ not cause a disruption of service.
> Therefor I would never use the filter-with-squid-acls option (ok, I
> am biased but ufdbGuard reconfiguration does not interrupt the proxy
> service and some admins reconfigure it often during working hours).
>
> Although one can schedule to do a reconfigure at 3 AM when disruption
> of service should not be a problem there are always the small or big
> problems that appear during working hours and need an immediate
> configuration change.

There is no reason for service disruption for a competent
administrator. For every problem there is a solution. See my response.
I just got done testing both methods, and they work.

>
> And yes, improve Squid to have no service disruption during a
> reconfigure will be a great feature.
> Are you aiming at "minimise service disruption window" or go for
> "never disrupt service" (unless a very important parameter like port
> number changes).
>
> Marcus
>

-
Signed,

Fix Nichols

http://www.squidblacklist.org
Received on Sun Jun 09 2013 - 16:46:43 MDT