Dear all, I've now got Squid successfully running on my Redhat 6.2. My final problems all boiled down to fine tuning the squid.conf script. While getting Cache Manager up and running, I had somehow persuaded myself that I needed always_direct allow school-network. Don't ask me how or why as it had the effect of causing all those machines to try and bypass the default parent cache. This meant that they could only see files that had already been cached by localhost. It will be interesting to see what happens when people get back from half term. I won't be surprised if I have to rapidly retract the first sentence of this email! BTW, I'm running Squid for a network of 35-ish machines with a max of 24 concurrent web browsers on a machine with 64MB of RAM, a 450 Mhz PII, and a 4 GB HDD that is dedicated entirely to Squid i.e. it's /usr/local/squid.
From other people's experience am I likely to find I'm over specified, or under or what?
Dear all,
I've now got Squid successfully running on my Redhat 6.2. My final
It's just not my weekend with emails - this time a bit got left off the end
of this one so I've replied to myself :-( and added the bits left off.
----- Original Message -----
From: npauli
all boiled down to fine tuning the squid.conf script. While getting Cache Manager up and running, I had somehow persuaded myself that I needed always_direct allow school-network.
Don't ask me how or why as it had the effect of causing all those machines to try and bypass the default parent cache. This meant that they could only see files that had already been cached by localhost.
It will be interesting to see what happens when people get back from half term. I won't be surprised if I have to rapidly retract the first sentence of this email!
BTW, I'm running Squid for a network of 35-ish machines with a max of 24 concurrent web browsers on a machine with 64MB of RAM, a 450 Mhz PII, > and a 4 GB HDD that is dedicated entirely to Squid i.e. it's /usr/local/squid.
I didn't design this setup to run squid; the machine (and especially its spare 2nd hd) was hanging around not doing much so I gave it this job. What do people think of this? Would it be worthwhile adding more memory? I've increased the cache directory size from the default 100Mb to 3000Mb? Would it be worth cutting it back, do you think? Nigel Nigel Pauli, St. John's School, Northwood
BTW, I'm running Squid for a network of 35-ish machines with a max of 24 concurrent web browsers on a machine with 64MB of RAM, a 450 Mhz PII, and a 4 GB HDD that is dedicated entirely to Squid i.e. it's /usr/local/squid. From other people's experience am I likely to find I'm over specified, or under or what?
We ran it for two years in a 96MB p-166 that was also the school's central filestore, DNS, mailhost, printserver, intranet etc etc etc, we then moved it six months ago to a 128MB p2-300 to which we also moved a few other things like NIS & DHCP, on which it's fine with about 300 clients although most of them quiescent much of the time, however, it's serving about 50K hits a day involving about 400MB (it's a 128K 24-hour line). Cache currently only 500MB. You are overspecified by comparison, but you might do better with more RAM. -- Christopher Dawkins, Felsted School, Dunmow, Essex CM6 3JG 01371-820527 or 07798 636725 cchd@felsted.essex.sch.uk
Hello all those people who recieved SuSE 7.0 in the last few days and joined the list ... Tell us who you are and what you hope to do :) Lurkers: there are lots of people who lurk and don't post much. That's absolutely fine, but I hope no one feels intimidated by some of the high level discussion that goes on. Any question, however basic is welcome. And you will *never* just be told on this list to go and RTFM. All the best Roger -- Roger Whittaker SuSE Linux Ltd The Kinetic Centre Theobald Street Borehamwood Herts WD6 4PJ ---------------------- 020 8387 1482 ---------------------- roger@suse-linux.co.uk ----------------------
Roger Roger Whittaker wrote:
And you will *never* just be told on this list to go and RTFM.
Oh.... I thought the best internet lists were involved in that kind of thing :) By the way, on the "train" on the way back from St Pancras last night I found what I think is either The Times or The Guardian on the table in front of me. It had a supplement called G2. There was an article inside which was written by a journalist who didn't seem to know anything about Linux at all. He went on about having to use command line arguments for most things. In an era when Gnome and KDE are very much upon us I find this to be slightly unusual. He also explained that this was to do with Red Hat 6.2. Perhaps someone else on this list also read the same thing and may wish to comment ? If we find out who the journalist is we might be able to send him a box of SuSE software ? Thanks -- Richard http://www.sheflug.co.uk
By the way, on the "train" on the way back from St Pancras last night I found what I think is either The Times or The Guardian on the table in front of me. It had a supplement called G2. There was an article inside which was written by a journalist who didn't seem to know anything about Linux at all. He went on about having to use command line arguments for most things. In an era when Gnome and KDE are very much upon us I find this to be slightly unusual. He also explained that this was to do with Red Hat 6.2.
Yep, it was yesterday's Grauniad. The author wasn't (as far as I can remember) a regular journo. He is a Archie fan. His complaints are not without merit; he wasn't much taken with un-tarring WordPerfect, and for needing to mount a CD to read it. RH wasn't a great choice for him. But he DID conclude that Linux usability is advancing rapidly, and MS isn't going to get cheaper.... What he was trying to do was set up Linux as a net gateway for his home LAN. I have this setup at home (with autodial), and AFAIK you can't do it point and click with any current distro. The full story is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,387829,00.html. -- Jim Hague - jim.hague@insignia.com (Work), jim@bear-cave.org.uk (Play) Never trust a computer you can't lift.
Jim Jim Hague wrote:
His complaints are not without merit; he wasn't much taken with un-tarring WordPerfect, and for needing to mount a CD to read it. RH wasn't a great choice for him. But he DID conclude that Linux usability is advancing rapidly, and MS isn't going to get cheaper....
Yes, I didn't actually understand why he needed to unzip Wordperfect. It's not necessary. WordPerfect 2000 from Corel can be bought off the shelf. And, Star Office is as easy to set up as MS Office. So, where's the problem ? Why did he go back to methods that died out last year ? Thanks -- Richard
It's in hand, Richard ... On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Richard wrote:
Roger
Roger Whittaker wrote:
And you will *never* just be told on this list to go and RTFM.
Oh.... I thought the best internet lists were involved in that kind of thing :)
By the way, on the "train" on the way back from St Pancras last night I found what I think is either The Times or The Guardian on the table in front of me. It had a supplement called G2. There was an article inside which was written by a journalist who didn't seem to know anything about Linux at all. He went on about having to use command line arguments for most things. In an era when Gnome and KDE are very much upon us I find this to be slightly unusual. He also explained that this was to do with Red Hat 6.2.
Perhaps someone else on this list also read the same thing and may wish to comment ? If we find out who the journalist is we might be able to send him a box of SuSE software ?
Thanks
-- Roger Whittaker SuSE Linux Ltd The Kinetic Centre Theobald Street Borehamwood Herts WD6 4PJ ---------------------- 020 8387 1482 ---------------------- roger@suse-linux.co.uk ----------------------
participants (5)
-
Christopher Dawkins -
Jim Hague -
npauli -
Richard -
Roger Whittaker