On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 17:31 +0100, Chris Halls wrote: > There have been quite a lot of attempts to make a better apt-proxy, but > almost always the authors discovered the problem is rather difficult to > get right, especially when you start worrying about streaming while > downloading, multiple clients downloading simultaneously and cache > cleaning algorithms. Based on previous attempts, I'd advise you not to > underestimate the task. Is apt-proxy really so broken that the only way > to make something better is to rewrite the whole thing from scratch? Caching for concurrent clients is non trivial :). Theres not a lot squid would need done, to make it an excellent archive-specific cache: If we allowed cache dir selection by request tag, or just by standards then acl's could trivially tag requests that should go into a dedicated cache dir, thus preventing normal traffic ejecting packages or archive metadata from the cache. Beyond that, see my other email for some settings that should make squid much better than the default, for apt caching. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part