RE: [SQU] high-availability proxies

> There are a number of alternatives for "high-availability" setups:
>
> a) TCP load balancer (commonly referred to as TCP switch) in front of
> the caches.
> + Works great
> - Costs $$
> - Breaks some TCP/IP rules, and some bleeding edge clients might
> experience problems from this (i.e. Linux or other OS:es implementing
> the latest greates TCP features)
> - One more "router" box in the network to manage

<mumble> Maybe I could derive something from tnt (which, despite
being written in an interpreted language, should
be pretty fast as it works using the same design principles
as Squid :-). Problem, you'd lose all infos on the originating IP (as it's
completely user-level). Or just use another squid :-)

> c) WPAD, automatic discovery of the PAC file location
> + Very flexible
> - Not widely supported. Only modern IE browsers I think

Yup. It was introduced in IE5.0, it seems.
I've looked into this a bit also, and it did some unexplainable
things (maybe some bogus interaction with some MS-proxies
I have running on the loose, but I have to tcpdump to
get the hang of this).

> My vote for proxies is either TCP load balancing, or active clustering
> where other members of the cluster takes over the IP
> address(es) of the failed machine.

Is there any complete software solution doing this, or is it
reinventing the wheel every time?

-- 
	/kinkie
--
To unsubscribe, see http://www.squid-cache.org/mailing-lists.html