Re: Problem with varnish and caching
On lun, 2007-07-02 at 22:42 -0700, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:26, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: I never insulted any of you. You really should go see a therapist. Just tell him or her: People think I'm a rude idiot - please help me. I will convey your thoughts to my therapist. We'll probably laugh about it over a bottle (or two) of scotch. In your weblog post you called Dag-Erling and Poul-Henning thin- skinned. Rather than disagree (although I do) with that I'll contest the assumption that having thick skin should be a prerequisite for building or participating in an open source community. Yes, having a thick skin is a prerequisite for participating in a community where everyone can actually *talk* to you and *reach* you. Being thick-skinned means: - not taking criticism of your product PERSONALLY - conceding that others may have a point, however wrong their arguments appear to be - empathy Under that definition, neither Dag-Erling, nor Poul-Henning have a thick skin. To be on-topic: I agree with the current conservative, RFC compliant default behavior. (Or to be more accurate: it was caching just fine for my use-case, too). Well, then Varnish is a perfect fit for you. It wasn't for me, and (I spent some time reading Varnish's varnish-misc mailing list) I discovered others had experienced the same problem. - ask Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The R Zone - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Never reveal your best argument. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: Problem with varnish and caching
Thanks a lot. Will use this to tune Varnish better. This functionality
is not mentioned in the manual page of vcl, nor was it conveyed to me by
Dag-Erling or Poul-Henning.
On mié, 2007-07-04 at 09:37 +0530, Anup Shukla wrote:
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
The optimum behaviour would be Varnish caching static files
(img,css,jpg,png, based on response HTTP headers) and not caching
dynamic ones. But as it currently stands, Varnish configuration
language doesn't allow caching to be controlled based on the response
headers, only on the request ones. Squid, however, does.
I had a similar situation.
In my case the site is 100% php, so in effect anything that comes out
with Content-Type text/html is php generated and given the nature of the
site, its not cacheable.
I have also put below my VCL configuration which works fine for me.
Its not much of a high quality configuration, but works for me.
Suggestion, as always, are welcome :)
sub vcl_recv {
if (req.request == GET req.http.cookie) {
lookup;
}
}
sub vcl_fetch {
if (!obj.valid) {
error;
}
if (!obj.cacheable) {
pass;
}
if (resp.http.Content-Type ~ text/html) {
pass;
}
if (resp.http.Set-Cookie) {
insert;
}
insert;
}
Hope this helps.
Regards
A.S
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The R Zone - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: VA - Ingen sommar utan reggae - Markoolio
As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport.
-- Shakespeare, King Lear
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
varnish-misc mailing list
varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no
http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: Problem with varnish and caching
- Anup Shukla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: site is cached according to Varnish default policies. You have not provided a single counterexample or a single snippet of VCL that could solve the problems I have, or a single snippet of VCL that you guys are actually using on production servers. man vcl does provide an example about how to cache even if Cookies are present. Did i miss something? Yeah, I think you missed the fact that Manuel isn't really interested in anything else than spewing out insults and bulls*** on the list. Nothing to see / hear here people move on, just an angry troll. Regards -- Denis Braekhus - Teknisk Ansvarlig ABC Startsiden AS http://www.startsiden.no ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: Problem with varnish and caching
Sigh, I keep going back to the engineering, and you keep personalizing the matter and returning to your lies. I never insulted any of you. You're personalizing the matter, and attempting to somehow equate my bug reports with personal criticism towards the developers. You're wrong about the majority of sites being accelerated by Varnish. Almost no modern site works without cookies -- hence, almost no modern site is cached according to Varnish default policies. You have not provided a single counterexample or a single snippet of VCL that could solve the problems I have, or a single snippet of VCL that you guys are actually using on production servers. I can admit that I'm considerably less capable than you, after all I didn't write Varnish whereas you *did*. However, I'm considerably less stupid than you would have me be. Here I am, finding a real problem in the real-life world -- and here you are, dismissing the problem like you're the owner of the universe and the truth, just because YOU chose to interpret my e-mails as direct criticism of YOU. Want direct criticism and harsh words to match your interpretations? Well, here they go, try and eat it with a side dish: YOU're a rude thick-headed and thin-skinned individual who hasn't taken a single minute out of his blame-me routine to actually HELP. You're carrying your heart on your sleeve. Grow up, stop acting like a prima donna, and understand that careless engineering and glib remarks aren't gonna be tolerated by your users, no matter how cool you think you are or how open-source-you're-free-not-to-use-us your project may be. This discussion has been absolutely useless. (Suggestion: perhaps you want to add me to your killfile like your partner did; otherwise you could conceivably receive more insults and swears may get to your inbox.) On lun, 2007-07-02 at 07:29 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But my data seems to contradict your assumption that my assumptions are flawed, since for each request on my Varnish log, there's a matching request on my Apache log. You assume that your site is typical of those that use Varnish. You assume that we developed Varnish without any reference to real-life sites, applications and users. You assume that you are infinintely smarter and wiser than us, and that because of this, insulting us and swearing at us will make us realize the error of our ways and embrace your interpretation of reality. All of these assumptions are incorrect. DES Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The R Zone - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to do a logical right shift? A: 33. 1 to hold the bits and 32 to push the register. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: Problem with varnish and caching
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: site is cached according to Varnish default policies. You have not provided a single counterexample or a single snippet of VCL that could solve the problems I have, or a single snippet of VCL that you guys are actually using on production servers. man vcl does provide an example about how to cache even if Cookies are present. Did i miss something? Regards A.S ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: Problem with varnish and caching
On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:26, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: I never insulted any of you. You really should go see a therapist. Just tell him or her: People think I'm a rude idiot - please help me. In your weblog post you called Dag-Erling and Poul-Henning thin- skinned. Rather than disagree (although I do) with that I'll contest the assumption that having thick skin should be a prerequisite for building or participating in an open source community. To be on-topic: I agree with the current conservative, RFC compliant default behavior. (Or to be more accurate: it was caching just fine for my use-case, too). - ask -- http://develooper.com/ - http://askask.com/ ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: Problem with varnish and caching
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In effect, the default Varnish policy of not caching Cookied requests causes Varnish not to cache anything at all for most sites (you know, there are tons of people out there using Google Analytics). Think about it: why would people want the overhead of a non-caching accelerating proxy? Perhaps your assumptions are flawed? DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav Senior Software Developer Linpro AS - www.linpro.no ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: Problem with varnish and caching
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) write s: I moved from Squid to Varnish and got stumped by your default policy. Squid accelerated static objects by default, cookies or no cookies. Varnish doesn't. Period. It took me 15 minutes to install Squid, learn how to set it up as an accelerator, and set it up. It took me over two hours just to answer the question why isn't Varnish accelerating my site?, and over 15 minutes to configure it to act sensibly. Doesn't look too well for your product now, does it? Nobody forces you to use Varnish, and given your unnecssarily snotty attitude, I suggest you stick with Squid. This is of course pretty harsh on the squid project, but you will almost certainly not be able to contribute positively to the Varnish project with that attitude. Killfile, meet Manuel, Manuel, bye! Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: Problem with varnish and caching
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But my data seems to contradict your assumption that my assumptions are flawed, since for each request on my Varnish log, there's a matching request on my Apache log. You assume that your site is typical of those that use Varnish. You assume that we developed Varnish without any reference to real-life sites, applications and users. You assume that you are infinintely smarter and wiser than us, and that because of this, insulting us and swearing at us will make us realize the error of our ways and embrace your interpretation of reality. All of these assumptions are incorrect. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav Senior Software Developer Linpro AS - www.linpro.no ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: Problem with varnish and caching
See my last e-mail to find out the hack I had to implement in order for Varnish to sort of work on my site. I moved from Squid to Varnish and got stumped by your default policy. Squid accelerated static objects by default, cookies or no cookies. Varnish doesn't. Period. It took me 15 minutes to install Squid, learn how to set it up as an accelerator, and set it up. It took me over two hours just to answer the question why isn't Varnish accelerating my site?, and over 15 minutes to configure it to act sensibly. Doesn't look too well for your product now, does it? Now I'm going to state what up until now I've only been implying: your default policy is braindead and stupid. For 99% of your potential user base (who tend to use these annoying little things called cookies), Varnish by default won't accelerate squat -- it will, however, introduce additional overhead. The other 1% serving all-static content with no cookies most probably doesn't need an accelerator anyway. Let me say it again: the default policy is braindead and stupid. It is braindead and stupid because no large site (you know, the type of site which actually needs acceleration) will run without a cookie-based visitor tracking system, and as a consequence, Varnish won't accelerate anything. I suggest you alter your default VCL policy to roughly match Squid's: - Cache everything cacheable with an adaptive TTL based on the Last-Modified header. Or 120s. I don't care, but I'd prefer an adaptive TTL -- old objects have low probability of being modified. - Do not use a client's Cookie headers as a sign that an object should be re-fetched from the backend. Web applications that need to issue fresh objects already implement either varying URLs or Cache-Control/Pragma headers to instruct caches not to cache content. - Anytime a client sends Cache-Control: no-cache headers, re-fetch the content from the backend. - Obey the backend's Cache-Control and Pragma no-cache headers. Also obey the Expires header. You see, Squid at least *accelerates something* out-of-the-box. In the meantime, try not to advertise Varnish as an accelerator, when it effectively isn't without heavy user intervention. I'm tired of arguing with you guys over something that should have been *obvious* for expert engineers who, in fact, have written a solid and revolutionary piece of software. It seems you're overlooking the details, and regrettably in this case the devil *is* in the details. Thanks for your time. On dom, 2007-07-01 at 09:05 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Dear Manuel, The Varnish *DEFAULT* VCL code implements what we have decided is a sensible default policy, which will Do The Right Thing for most people, at least to get them going with Varnish. Your complaints all seem to center on the fact that the default VCL code doesn't work for you. You seem to have overlooked the fact that you are not forced to run with the default VCL code. Varnish is on track to offer the most comprehensive and flexible configuration mechanism yet to be seen on any web server or cache. Now, instead of whining about the default, tailor Varnish to your situation. Thankyou! Poul-Henning Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The R Zone - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: UB40 - Reggae music Don't Worry, Be Happy. -- Meher Baba signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: Problem with varnish and caching
[moved from -dev to -misc] Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As you might already have noted, I reported a bug on varnish caching files indiscriminately. This is not a bug, it is a misunderstanding. It appears you expect Varnish to act like an RFC 2616 shared cache whereas it is in fact a surrogate (see the Edge Architecture Specification by Oracle and Akamai, although Varnish does not yet fully implement that specification either) My page sets a few cookies. That'd be okay and it should produce dynamic pages, which Varnish is furnishing through my backend. The thing is, these cookies are sent along requests for CSS and PNG and JPG and JS files, which causes varnish to contact the backend. I don't want that to happen (I'm happy with them being cached by Varnish 120 seconds). How can I tell Varnish that requests with a response that includes ETag (a discriminant for static files) should be forcibly cached? This is basically the same issue as in your previous email, and the answer is the same. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav Senior Software Developer Linpro AS - www.linpro.no ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
