www/squid's cache dir
ncrogers at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 16:25:55 UTC 2015
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 7:33 AM, timp <timp87 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ok, so you don't see the difference too, do you?
> > Actually I do see the difference - I think the current layout is
> > better. My point was that "I can't see any difference" isn't a good
> > argument for making disruptive change.
> > I think it's obvious that putting multiple caches under one squid
> > directory is better than having multiple squid directories.
> Well, yes, in most cases.
> > > The point is get rid of dirs which we don't really need for this port,
> > > and place cache to suitable dir which is made in base system for such
> > > purposes.
> > > Just for order. You think it's bad idea?
> > I think it's cleaner to have a default location for squid caches,
> > rather than just a default cache location. There's an unnecessary
> > directory to the same extent as there is with a single home directory
> > under /home.
> > Whether squid goes under /var or /var/cache is a completely different
> > issue. In the second case you would need /var/cache/squid/cache.
> I like the /var/cache/squid/cache variant =) It looks too long though.
> About a half of a year cache dir was hided a bit deeper.
> Is it your commit? Sorry, I can't see your name, just a name of mail list.
> Do you think logs should be under /var/squid too (now empty /var/squid/logs
FWIW, I have the squid port installed on hundreds of systems, however I do
not use the port defaults and have logs and cache on a separate filesystem
mounted in /squid (i.e., /squid/logs, /squid/cache). In my opinion, it
makes sense for the port to default to using /var/squid/cache and
/var/squid/logs, which I believe is already the case?
In my opinion using /var/cache/squid/... does not make any sense. I'm not
exactly sure the intention of /var/cache - my systems only use it for
pkg(8), but it seems intended more for a temporary application cache in the
traditional sense and not so much for things like a web cache that need to
be much larger.
In reality, I would think that most users of squid with a reasonably sized
cache-dir would need to relocate squid cache and logs to a filesystem of
larger size than the average /var, or mount /var/squid elsewhere in which
case they would likely want /var/squid of the /var filesystem to be empty.
> > Please don't top-post.
> I'm sorry! I'll do my best.
> Does anyone have any other opinion?
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the freebsd-ports mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-ports