Ricardo Newbery wrote:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:30 PM, DHF wrote:
Ricardo Newbery wrote:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
Sure, but this is also the sort of content that can be cached back
upstream using ordinary HTTP headers.
No, it cannot. Again, the use case is
On Apr 8, 2008, at 8:26 AM, DHF wrote:
Ricardo Newbery wrote:
Regarding the potential management overhead... this is not relevant
to the question of whether this strategy would increase your site's
performance. Management overhead is a separate question, and not
an easy one to answer
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Ricardo Newbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, static content isn't only the stuff that is served from
filesystems in the classic static web server scenario. There are plenty
of
dynamic applications that process content from database -- applying
skins
Ricardo Newbery wrote:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
Sure, but this is also the sort of content that can be cached back
upstream using ordinary HTTP headers.
No, it cannot. Again, the use case is dynamically-generated content
that is subject to change
Am Freitag 04 April 2008 01:32:28 schrieb DHF:
Sascha Ottolski wrote:
however, my main problem is currently that the varnish childs keep
restarting, and that this empties the cache, which effectively
renders the whole setup useless for me :-( if the cache has filled
up, it works great, if
Am Freitag 04 April 2008 04:37:44 schrieb Ricardo Newbery:
sub vcl_fetch {
if (obj.ttl 120s) {
set obj.ttl = 120s;
}
}
Or you can invent your own header... let's call it X-Varnish-1day
sub vcl_fetch {
Am Freitag 04 April 2008 10:11:52 schrieb Stig Sandbeck Mathisen:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:01:57 +0200, Sascha Ottolski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I definetely did nothing like this, I've observed restarts out of
the blue. I'm no giving the trunk a try, hopefully there's an
improvement to that
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Sascha Ottolski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you are right, _if_ the working set is small. in my case, we're talking
20+ mio. small images (5-50 KB each), 400+ GB in total size, and it's
growing every day. access is very random, but there still is a good
amount
Am Freitag 04 April 2008 18:11:23 schrieb Michael S. Fischer:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Sascha Ottolski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
you are right, _if_ the working set is small. in my case, we're
talking 20+ mio. small images (5-50 KB each), 400+ GB in total
size, and it's growing
On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:50 AM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ricardo Newbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, first of all you're setting up a false dichotomy. Not
everything
fits neatly into your apparent definitions of dynamic versus
static. Your
Sascha Ottolski wrote:
Am Freitag 04 April 2008 18:11:23 schrieb Michael S. Fischer:
Ah, I see.
The problem is that you're basically trying to compensate for a
congenital defect in your design: the network storage (I assume NFS)
backend. NFS read requests are not cacheable by the kernel
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Ricardo Newbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, static content isn't only the stuff that is served from
filesystems in the classic static web server scenario. There are plenty of
dynamic applications that process content from database -- applying skins
and
On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Ricardo Newbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Again, static content isn't only the stuff that is served from
filesystems in the classic static web server scenario. There are
plenty of
dynamic
Sascha Ottolski wrote:
how can this be? My varnish runs for about 36 hours now. yesterday
evening, the resident memory size was like 10 GB, which is still way
below the available 32. later that evening, I stopped letting request
to the proxy over night. now I came back, let the request back
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Sascha Ottolski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All this with 1.1.2. It's vital to my setup to cache as many objects as
possible, for a long time, and that they really stay in the cache. Is
there anything I could do to prevent the cache being emptied? May be
I've
Am Donnerstag 03 April 2008 18:07:53 schrieb DHF:
Sascha Ottolski wrote:
how can this be? My varnish runs for about 36 hours now. yesterday
evening, the resident memory size was like 10 GB, which is still
way below the available 32. later that evening, I stopped letting
request to the
Am Donnerstag 03 April 2008 18:07:53 schrieb DHF:
how can this be? My varnish runs for about 36 hours now. yesterday
evening, the resident memory size was like 10 GB, which is still
way below the available 32. later that evening, I stopped letting
request to the proxy over night. now I
Michael S. Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Sascha Ottolski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All this with 1.1.2. It's vital to my setup to cache as many objects as
possible, for a long time, and that they really stay in the cache. Is
there anything I could do to prevent the
Am Donnerstag 03 April 2008 19:30:25 schrieb Michael S. Fischer:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Sascha Ottolski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
All this with 1.1.2. It's vital to my setup to cache as many
objects as possible, for a long time, and that they really stay in
the cache. Is there
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Sascha Ottolski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and I don't wan't upstream caches or browsers to cache that long, only
varnish, so setting headers doesn't seem to fit.
Why not? Just curious. If it's truly cachable content, it seems as
though it would make sense
On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Sascha Ottolski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
and I don't wan't upstream caches or browsers to cache that long,
only
varnish, so setting headers doesn't seem to fit.
Why not? Just curious. If it's
Sascha Ottolski wrote:
however, my main problem is currently that the varnish childs keep
restarting, and that this empties the cache, which effectively renders
the whole setup useless for me :-( if the cache has filled up, it works
great, if it restarts empty, obviously it doesn't.
is
On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Ricardo Newbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Sascha Ottolski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
and I don't wan't upstream
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Ricardo Newbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL versioning is usually not appropriate for html
pages or other primary resources that are intended to be reached directly by
the end user and whose URLs must not change.
Back to square one. Are these latter
On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:46 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Ricardo Newbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
URL versioning is usually not appropriate for html
pages or other primary resources that are intended to be reached
directly by
the end user and whose URLs
25 matches
Mail list logo
