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
Perhaps.
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.
If Varnish isn't accelerating anything (not even static content) due to
Cookies, then... h all that fancy new-wor
"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
ass
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
On 02.07.2007, at 00:36, TiAMO wrote:
> I just signed up to the list so sorry if my questions have been
> asked a
> million times already, if so i please point me to the responses.
>
> This is what i want to do:
>
> I want to setup anycasted proxys for static content that will have
> 48gig of
I just signed up to the list so sorry if my questions have been asked a
million times already, if so i please point me to the responses.
This is what i want to do:
I want to setup anycasted proxys for static content that will have 48gig of
RAM, 6TB (6x1TB disks in a raid0 setup) of storage and
On 30.06.2007, at 23:45, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Denis Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> svnversion says 1589M. you made no changes after that.
>
> Are you sure your tree is up-to-date and you rebuilt everything?
> r1584
> should have fixed that bug.
Iam now running r1603 and it star
Hi,
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:10:16 -0500
> From: "Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Problem with varnish and caching
> To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: varnish-m
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 se
Then another question (which will surely help me MUCH MORE than this
conundrum). I want to alter the Varnish caching policy to cache objects
whose response contains an ETag or a Last-Modified header, irrespective
of whether the user sent cookies along. That'll allow me to make
Varnish cache stati
Whether this is part of a different specification or not, it's
unreasonable for Varnish to NOT cache static, cacheable objects by
default, solely because these requests were sent along with Cookies.
In effect, the default Varnish policy of not caching Cookied requests
causes Varnish not to cache a
"Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then another question (which will surely help me MUCH MORE than this
> conundrum). I want to alter the Varnish caching policy to cache objects
> whose response contains an ETag or a Last-Modified header, irrespective
> of whether the user sent
"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
13 matches
Mail list logo
