Re: Summary of Squid-2.6 opinions

On Mon, Nov 07, 2005, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> But my experience is that very few customers are willing to wait for
> Squid-3 to become stable, instead demanding that the feature is also
> developed for Squid-2.5 for production use "now" and in addition also to
> Squid-3 to be future safe.
>
> I also see that Squid is quite rapidly loosing it's presence on the market
> in favor for our friend Apache for reverse proxies and a number of
> commercial closed vendors for Internet proxies, in large due to Squid-2.5
> starting to become quite behind in both functionality and performance
> unless one is willing to spend a lot of time on patching (a situation not
> to far from that of qmail I would say except that we at least have all the
> major bugs fixed...)

I agree with Henrik here. We need something that works, and works now.
A lot of the proposed 2.6 changes should go into squid-3 rather easily,
including my IO stuff. Heck, I'd like to do some work on COSS which could
be easily ported to work with squid-3 but I can't guarantee that squid-3
is stable/predictable enough to know whether its squid-3, or my COSS code.

My place o'work won't let me run squid-3 on the test servers until its
released -STABLE.

So I believe that releasing a stable 2.6, with all the features to make
it attractive to current users, will go a long way in keeping /squid/ alive.
Its a stable platform to try out new ideas against. I don't think that
releasing it with some definite performance and feature improvements
will reduce the squid-3 work done to date.

But then, as I've noted, I'm byast: I really, really want to throw my
stuff into squid-2.6 so I can attempt some really noticeable performance
increases. They'll still be applicable to squid-3.0, and I think my
IO tidyup will reduce the complexity of the squid-3 network IO code.

Adrian
Received on Sun Nov 06 2005 - 20:38:05 MST