Squid Poll

Myntric · Nov 6, 2005, 12:55 AM

This is a poll to see the interest in the Squid package that I've been working on. I'm curious to know the impact to the userbase of pfSense.

Guest · Nov 6, 2005, 11:47 PM

I think, based on the questions about the squid package on the mail lists, you can safely assume that this will be a popular package. Unfortunately, because squid has so many various uses, adding onto your basic package is going to become a very involved task. It'll be kind of hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all package.

Jesse7 · Nov 7, 2005, 12:10 AM

I am happy with just the basics to start with. Seems to be going ok for me for now.

Myntric · Nov 7, 2005, 1:04 AM

@submicron:

I think, based on the questions about the squid package on the mail lists, you can safely assume that this will be a popular package. Unfortunately, because squid has so many various uses, adding onto your basic package is going to become a very involved task. It'll be kind of hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all package.

I'm trying to keep a specific scope on the project as it expands and I probably won't be able to meet everyone's needs. The primary development path I've been contemplating is:

Squid
squidGuard
Log Integration into Web GUI
HAVP/Squid

The current Squid configuration allows for quite a bit of complexity, but the challenge will be determined based upon everyone's request and of course, my time. :) I actually find this a good outlet to be creative and enjoy it, but there are so many other demands on my time development has been slower than I'd like. I'll get there…

Mike

swinokur · Nov 7, 2005, 6:28 PM

I'd like to be able to use the proxy portion of Squid on the wrap platform.

(I'd actually be happy with jftpgw - as all i really need is a ftp proxy – but jftpgw doesn't support SSL/TLS.)

Myntric · Nov 7, 2005, 7:57 PM

@swinokur:

I'd like to be able to use the proxy portion of Squid on the wrap platform.

(I'd actually be happy with jftpgw - as all i really need is a ftp proxy – but jftpgw doesn't support SSL/TLS.)

I don't have access to a wrap platform to perform any testing on. Can you identify any specific configuration differences that may be necessary? Thanks!

Best Regards,
Mike

hoba · Nov 7, 2005, 8:15 PM

keep in mind: wrap runs from cf and has a read only file system. to many write will kill the media in quite short time if you set it to read write. also the wrap (only) has a 266 MHz CPU and 128 MB RAM. I wouldn't recommend running a caching proxy application on a cf-media. Also note that the embedded builds have no packagesupport either.

swinokur · Nov 8, 2005, 8:18 PM

hoba:

i was hoping to just use squid as a proxy – with no caching.
but it sounds like the lack of packagesupport is pretty much a 'deal killer'?

Mike:
as hoba says wrap is an embedded platform running from CF - (read only), and is only a 266mhz proc with 128M of memory. It's a tiny hardware footprint. Also, as hoba says no packagesupport.

colin_ · Nov 8, 2005, 8:53 PM

The embedded builds still have package functionality, but it is not exposed to the webGUI. Although this could change in the future (particularly for packages that aren't write-heavy), those that want to run packages will need to use the 'standard' build on a hard drive or microdrive for the time being.

ZGamer · Nov 8, 2005, 8:58 PM

@colin_:

The embedded builds still have package functionality, but it is not exposed to the webGUI. Although this could change in the future (particularly for packages that aren't write-heavy), those that want to run packages will need to use the 'standard' build on a hard drive or microdrive for the time being.

Problem I have is the standard install differs from the wrap install right after installation. I'm running the wrap install because it doesn't auto-assign an interface to the lan ip-range and the box I'm running is a wrap but it has a 20gig hard drive in it.

sullrich · Nov 8, 2005, 9:04 PM

@ZGamer:

@colin_:

The embedded builds still have package functionality, but it is not exposed to the webGUI. Although this could change in the future (particularly for packages that aren't write-heavy), those that want to run packages will need to use the 'standard' build on a hard drive or microdrive for the time being.

Problem I have is the standard install differs from the wrap install right after installation. I'm running the wrap install because it doesn't auto-assign an interface to the lan ip-range and the box I'm running is a wrap but it has a 20gig hard drive in it.

You can use the standard install to install to a wrap if you know what the ramifications are (drive always mounted RW).

alpha · Apr 1, 2006, 5:23 PM

Thanks Myntric
just register for this post ^^

using Squid as the proxy