[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: squid-dev
Subject: Re: [squid-dev] [RFC] Do we want paranoid_hit_validation?
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3 () treenet ! co ! nz>
Date: 2019-01-15 3:02:33
Message-ID: 952a8ef3-96a1-0bc1-c3eb-ed04bd323129 () treenet ! co ! nz
[Download RAW message or body]
On 9/01/19 4:01 am, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 1/8/19 1:50 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 8/01/19 4:58 pm, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> This particular validation does not require checksums or other expensive
>>> computations. It does not require disk I/O. The code simply traverses
>>> the chain of disk slot metadata for the entry and compares the sum of
>>> individual slot sizes with the expected total cache entry size. The
>>> validation is able to detect many (but not all) cases of cache index
>>> corruption.
>
>
>> Does it have to be a global directive like proposed?
>
> No, it does not. Each validation check only needs access to the index of
> the storage where the hit object was found.
>
>
>> An option of cache_dir would seem better. That would allow admin to work
>> tune it to match their different cache types and object-size separation
>> (if any).
>
>
> Yes, this can be implemented as a cache_dir-specific (and, with even
> more work, also as a cache_mem-specific) option. Do you think it is a
> good idea to add this feature if it is controllable on individual
> cache_dirs basis?
>
I think so yes. Long-term I would like to collate these types of tests
into a separate cache management tool. But short of that happening
having some way for Squid to do it is a good ting.
Amos
_______________________________________________
squid-dev mailing list
squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic