Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Squid Poll

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved pfSense Packages
    12 Posts 9 Posters 7.5k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • M
      Myntric
      last edited by

      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.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • ?
        Guest
        last edited by

        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.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • J
          Jesse7
          last edited by

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

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • M
            Myntric
            last edited by

            @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

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              swinokur
              last edited by

              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.)

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • M
                Myntric
                last edited by

                @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

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • H
                  hoba
                  last edited by

                  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.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • S
                    swinokur
                    last edited by

                    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.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • C
                      colin_
                      last edited by

                      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.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • Z
                        ZGamer
                        last edited by

                        @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.

                        –------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        pfSense Documentation Wiki
                        Need Commercial Support?
                        Personal Blog

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • S
                          sullrich
                          last edited by

                          @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).

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • A
                            alpha
                            last edited by

                            Thanks Myntric
                            just register for this post ^^

                            using Squid as the proxy

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.