Re: [squid-users] Which squid to use?

On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 03:30:59PM -0600, Joe Cooper wrote:

> Seriously though, Squid 2.4STABLE3 is pretty good, and what I'm
> deploying today. 2.2STABLE5+hno is still faster, and more stable in
> most environments, as well...but none the less the feature set of
> 2.4STABLE3 is enough better that it's worth giving up a little speed.

Additionally there are one or two problems in 2.2 releases which have been
fixed in the later versions. For instance, one particular problem I
encountered was with Windows XP talking to windowsupdate.com [1]- 2.3STABLE4
and 2.4 series are certainly fine, but 2.2 can't cope (this proved a
problem for us since our parent caches ran 2.2 despite our local cluster
being on 2.4).

[1] For those wanting more details: Squid 2.2 has problems with zero
Content-Length in the HEAD requests sent -
http://list.cineca.it/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0006&L=squid&P=R11854 has
information from Henrik on a potential fix for this. Certainly preventing
access to such updates is not considered a wise move :-)

-- 
--------------- Robin Stevens  <robin.stevens@oucs.ox.ac.uk> -----------------
Oxford University Computing Services ----------- Web: http://www.cynic.org.uk/
------- (+44)(0)1865: 273212 (work) 273275 (fax)  Mobile: 07776 235326 -------