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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[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
11 matches
Mail list logo
