Re: [RFC] Do we want paranoid_hit_validation?
Amos Jeffries <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.squid.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/01/19 4:58 pm, Alex Rousskov wrote: > Hello, > > Squid has a few bugs that may result in rock cache corruption. > Factory is working on fixing those bugs. During that work, we have added > support for validating rock disk cache entry metadata at the time of a > cache hit. > > 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. > ... > What do you think? > Does it have to be a global directive like proposed? 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). Amos _______________________________________________ squid-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev