Re: pen vs ldirector

> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Mark Jayson R. Alvarez wrote:
> > PS=Parent Squid Proxy
> > CS= Child Squid Proxy
> > <->= CARP
> > u=users
> > _____________
> > / \
> > ( INTERNET )
> > \_____________/
> >
> >
> > _____ ____ ____
> > PS1 PS2 PS3 ----->all three including
> > ------- ----- ------ the 2 pen are located
> > at \ | / our noc
> > \ | /
> > \ | /
> > {PEN1} <-> {PEN2} -
> > \ /
> > \ --------------- /
> >
> > |___________/
> >
> > / / \ \
> > / / \ \
> > ------- ------ ------ ------
> > CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 ------> Child proxies are
> > ------ ------ ------ ------- distributed
> > to / / \ \ various clients( u u
> > u u u u u u u u u u u univs, govt agen-
> > u u u u u u u u u u u u u u cies, etc)
>
> Why don't you just do this on cs1-cs4:
No, i mean CS1 is up to CSn. There are so many child proxies (one for every
institution that is connected to us, we are ISP for various goverment
agencies) And in our current setup, their proxy server's parent is the VIP of
those 2 ldirector.

such that this:

> cache_peer ps1 parent 3128 3130
> cache_peer ps2 parent 3128 3130
> cache_peer ps3 parent 3128 3130

Looks like this:
cache_peer {ldirector} parent 3128 3130

> It feels like the functionality you're trying to get from pen is
> already built into squid.

Right now we are using LVS, but we would like to achieve the same thing using
CARP+pen+BSD os.

> Ulric
Received on Tue Nov 22 2005 - 11:46:04 CET