Hi all,
I would like to see the following feature in varnish;
during the grace period varnish will serve requests from the cache but
simultaniously does a backend request and stores the new object.
As varnish is much faster than backend servers this will give the end
user the fastest
Martin Boer wrote:
I would like to see the following feature in varnish;
during the grace period varnish will serve requests from the cache but
simultaniously does a backend request and stores the new object.
This would also be of interest to us. I'm not sure if it's best to have
a
In message b5ef6a23-b6bb-49a6-8eab-1043fc7bf...@dynamine.net, Michael S. Fis
cher writes:
Does Varnish already try to utilize CPU caches efficiently by employing =
some sort of LIFO thread reuse policy or by pinning thread pools to =
specific CPUs? If not, there might be some opportunity for
As far as I know, varnish does this by default?
To expire content you have to serve proper expire and last-modified headers.
Some (dynamic) applications sets inproper or even non of those headers at
all.
===
@Martin Boer (DTCH)
Neem ff contact met mij op via email.
Ik heb
2010/1/15 Rob S rtshils...@gmail.com
John Norman wrote:
Folks,
A couple more questions:
(1) Are they any good strategies for splitting load across Varnish
front-ends? Or is the common practice to have just one Varnish server?
(2) How do people avoid single-point-of-failure for
I noticed it is impossible to match a header value against a acl.
What I tried to do is as follow:
if ( !req.http.X-Forwarded-For ~ purge ) {
remove req.http.Cache-Control;
}
This is to reduce the number of forced refreshes due to bots.
And normally you would use client.ip (what works
On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message b5ef6a23-b6bb-49a6-8eab-1043fc7bf...@dynamine.net, Michael S.
Fis
cher writes:
Does Varnish already try to utilize CPU caches efficiently by employing =
some sort of LIFO thread reuse policy or by pinning thread pools to =
In message 002501ca9918$aa519aa0$fef4cf...@paulissen@qbell.nl, Henry Pauliss
en writes:
What I tried to do is as follow:
if ( !req.http.X-Forwarded-For ~ purge ) {
I have decided what the syntax for this will be, but I have still
not implemented it.
In general all type conversions, except to
Nice
When will this be in trunk?
Regards,
@Paul, sorry... forgot to include varnish-misc
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: p...@critter.freebsd.dk [mailto:p...@critter.freebsd.dk] Namens
Poul-Henning Kamp
Verzonden: dinsdag 19 januari 2010 18:24
Aan: Henry Paulissen
CC:
Folks,
For the health check (or, ahem, backend probe, as the docs has it --
ouch!), does health constitute ability to connect?
Or does it check for a 200?
Or get an entire page and verify that it's the right number of bytes . . . ?
Or . . . ?
In short, what constitutes a successful probe?
Hi,
in http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/ticket/613 I have suggested to add a
measure to varnishstat which I thought could be called the efficiency ratio.
Tollef has commented that we'd need the community's (YOUR) opinion on this:
The varnishstat cache hit rate basically gives a ratio for how
Michael Fischer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk
mailto:p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
In message de028c9e-4618-4ebc-8477-6e308753c...@dynamine.net
mailto:de028c9e-4618-4ebc-8477-6e308753c...@dynamine.net,
Michael S. Fis
cher writes:
In message b6b8b6b71001191152u7be99773o5ec70b20026...@mail.gmail.com, John No
rman writes:
Folks,
For the health check (or, ahem, backend probe, as the docs has it --
ouch!), does health constitute ability to connect?
Or does it check for a 200?
It checks 200
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX
13 matches
Mail list logo
