On 02/26/2013 05:17 AM, Steve Hill wrote:
>> Code simplicity. An "if(flags.spoof)" test is far faster than even
>> constructing a checklist and processing "allow all" in fast-ACL pathway.
>> So if the ACL flexibility does not actually have a clear need the speed
>> would be better.
> Ok. Well I'm a bit on the fence here too.
>
> I can see some use for the flexibility - the situation I mentioned would
> require spoofing to be disabled for requests from the branch offices but
> it would probably be desirable to leave spoofing on for the main office.
...
> I tend to think that since the ACL isn't constructed and tested in the
> default case (and therefore for most people there is no performance
> hit), I would err towards increased functionality rather than increased
> performance.
It sounds like Steve has a reasonable use case where ACLs would help.
And he is right that the default should be "no acl" (with appropriate
effect) rather than "allow all" ACL so that the feature performance
impact on Squid that does not care about these things will be negligible
and equivalent to the "if (flags.spoof)" test overheads.
If you need a tie breaker, and there is no expert to chime in, I am
happy to vote for the ACL control path, with a "no ACL" default :-).
Thank you,
Alex.
Received on Tue Feb 26 2013 - 18:27:07 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Feb 27 2013 - 12:00:08 MST