No worries—thanks for following up on it! That’s very interesting, about the concurrent requests, because the “normal” report does around 80% more requests per day than the “leaky” one — a few hundred thousand vs a couple of million.
Does this CLOSE_WAIT sockets issue have a bug being tracked or anything like that? I’ve probably overlooked the discussion on the list. > On 1 Jun 2016, at 10:26 PM, Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > > Hi Dan, > sorry RL getting in the way these weeks. > > Two things stand out for me. > > Its a bit odd that exteral ACL entries shodul be so high. But your > "normal" report has more allocated than the "leaky" report. So thats > just a sign that your external ACLs are not working very efficiently > (results being fairly unique, so the lookup cache not being much use there). > > In the "leaky" report there are 10K concurrent requests still active. > Normal report shows only 1K requests. So up to 10x the state data > storeage is needed by that proxy. > > > I'm a little suspicious you might be seeing another symptom of the issue > behind what others have been reporting as too many CLOSE_WAIT sockets > staying open with Squid not doing anything for them. > > Amos _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
