Hello...


regarding RouterOS v3.3 web proxy feature:


how one can set max-object-size for the web proxy?

In v2.9.xx there was a field to define this parameter... BUT in v3.3 this field is not there anymore...


ANY SUGGESTIONS?




Regards,




mson77

Hi mson77, "i think" that is not possible in current version. I believe that the Mikrotik team is working in this.

I think they develop 'smart' proxy, which automatically detect this parameter =)

I think that the user can be more smart, or to have the right of trying. Besides, exists many different sceneries and freedom is very good.

I agree with this topic...

The object size is very important, mainly when using queue to unlimit the bandwidth for proxy content.

I rather my clients to download a 120mb max object size at 200kb/s that will take about 10 minutes, instead my clients downloads 800mb object size at same speed that will take at least 1 hour.

The second download would congestion my wireless ap for such a longest period than the first case.


Waiting for the support team to include this option at next releases!

I have been talking about it since the Ver 3 beginning, none was interested that time. npbrasil is right we must have that freedom to change that option. And can anyone describe what is smart proxy?!! human must be smarter than the MT web proxy

Peace

I have been talking about it since the Ver 3 beginning, none was interested that time. npbrasil is right we must have that freedom to change that option. And can anyone describe what is smart proxy?!! human must be smarter than the MT web proxy

Peace

yup i agree with u

And can anyone describe what is smart proxy?!! human must be smarter than the MT web proxy

not agree. why do you use calculator - is it smarter than you?
computers have much greater performance, so they can make dynamical decisions based on current situation, not hypothetical

Ok, then the squid proxy, the most widely (maybe) used proxy is wrong? The squid.conf is inutile and a piece of nonsense? Computers are tools and i decide what they should do.

Ok, then the squid proxy, the most widely (maybe) used proxy is wrong? The squid.conf is inutile and a piece of nonsense? Computers are tools and i decide what they should do.

all things have its advantages and disadvantages. people on forum post that v3 cache works better than v2.9. but v2.9 proxy was based on squid... and why not select what files should be cached on the basis of its popularity?

(hyperbolized) in terms of bandwidth, it's better to cache one file of 200 Mb, which will be downloaded 3 times, than five files of 1 Mb, that will be downloaded 50 times...

Ok, then the squid proxy, the most widely (maybe) used proxy is wrong? The squid.conf is inutile and a piece of nonsense? Computers are tools and i decide what they should do.

all things have its advantages and disadvantages. people on forum post that v3 cache works better than v2.9. but v2.9 proxy was based on squid... and why not select what files should be cached on the basis of its popularity?

(hyperbolized) in terms of bandwidth, it's better to cache one file of 200 Mb, which will be downloaded 3 times, than five files of 1 Mb, that will be downloaded 50 times...

Is not correct to compare a linux squid box with the squid implementation used in version 2.9. In the 2.9 is not possible define the system file type (reiserfs, etc), i/o disk access process (diskd, aufs, etc) and etc, etc. I respect your opinion, but for me the proxy in 3.0 version is very very closed (in configuration options) and buggy. I sent three supouts reports in last week with confirmed bugs and the mikrotik team have promised to try correct until next version. About the speed in 3.0, is not possible attribute to the proxy only, the linux kernel is new and more efficient etc. Ex about the closed thing: i would like show the proxy errors messages in the native language of my clients (brazilian portuguese), it's possible? No. I have used RouterOS since 2.7 and always existed weak points for improvement. If we follow the simplicity line, because then so many options in the firewall? Should not everything be smart and automated? It's all about freedom, and i love the RouterOS for this, but i want more.

Dear npbrasil,

Man you have written what was in my mind, thx bro. I have installed linux fedora for my other purpose (DNS, Web host n proxy) and now I know squid is more faster than ver 3 proxy and I have all the freedom to change it's config.

Thanks

Hello...



considering RouterBoard's users enviroment... with limited RAM... no local disk... and limited CPU power... usage of external proxy is the best run.

I also tested a parent-proxy using fedora8/squid... with **unlimited RAM** and unlimited disk sapce** (quite unlimited)... and the performance was great!


My oppinion is that RouterOS was made for users to have EXTERNAL proxy implemented. Due resources needed by a good proxy server (and RouterBoard hardware only is not recommended for this task).


Regards,

Dear mson77, We are talking about MT OS web proxy Ver 3 in a X86 box not in a routerboard.

Thanks

Yes, in small x86 deploys the all in one features of the routeros are very good, but we need more flexibility and freedom, mainly in web proxy. I won't spend money (and more electrical power) in dedicated dns or proxy if the amount of customers is not justified.