On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quoting Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The example you mention illustrates how to cache multiple
virtual hosts
served by *separate* backends. If all
On Aug 12, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are there any OS X fixes in the 1.1 branch?
Some, yes. At least, I hope the -flat_namespace hack is no longer
required, but I don't have a Mac to test on right now.
I
On Sep 24, 2007, at 8:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
My configuration :
I've a apache server with the mod proxy activated listening in the
port 80 and redirect to 9080 where my plone site listen.
And i know that varnish is the best solution to cache
How integrated varnish in this
On Sep 24, 2007, at 12:18 PM, jean-marc pouchoulon wrote:
bonjour,
And i know that varnish is the best solution to cache
How integrated varnish in this achitecture ? (What port must listen
varnish in my architecture? How specify to apache to cache with
varnish? ...)
put varnish in
On Nov 5, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Damien Wetzel wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying varnish on a 64 bit machine on which the port 80 is already
active, so i use the port 8080 to talk to varnish.
I wondered if someone knew a way to tell firefox to use port 8080 by
default to avoid me the pain of adding
On Dec 6, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik writes:
Just to make this clear, does varnish identify an object like this
in vcl_hash?
sub vcl_hash {
set req.hash += req.url;
set req.hash += req.http.host;
I came across this line in an example vcl which confused me...
sub vcl_hash {
set req.hash += req.http.Accept-Encoding;
}
This line seemed superfluous to me since it was my impression that
varnish already took care of this automatically as long as the Vary
header was set correctly.
I'm looking at the default vcl and I see the following stanza:
sub vcl_hit {
if (!obj.cacheable) {
pass;
}
deliver;
According to the vcl man page:
obj.cacheable
True if the request resulted in a cacheable
On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Ricardo Newbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Yes, the spec is two years out of date.
Right. That much was apparent. My question again is shouldn't this
document be updated? And is there still an intent to implement any
On Mar 20, 2008, at 6:07 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Ricardo Newbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If an authenticated request comes in and I have a valid cached copy,
Varnish should not return the cached copy *unless* the copy
contains a
public' token. It's not enough that Varnish
This is a minor thing but I'm wondering if I'm making an incorrect
assumption.
In my vcl file, I have lines similar to the following...
if (req.http.Cookie req.http.Cookie ~ (__ac=|_ZopeId=)) {
pass;
}
and I'm wondering if the first part of this is unnecessary. For
On Mar 21, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Ricardo Newbery wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 5:08 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Ricardo Newbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I still don't understand why you want to go from hit to fetch.
Just
pass it.
Because
In the default vcl, we have the following test...
if (req.http.Authenticate || req.http.Cookie) {
pass;
}
What issues an Authenticate header? Was this supposed to be
Authorization?
Ric
___
On Mar 27, 2008, at 5:50 PM, Cherife Li wrote:
On 03/28/08 06:47, Ricardo Newbery wrote:
In the default vcl, we have the following test...
if (req.http.Authenticate || req.http.Cookie) {
pass;
}
What issues an Authenticate header
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
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 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
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
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
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 Apr 7, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Jon Drukman wrote:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam
Quigley writ
es:
...just thought I'd point out another seemingly-nifty thing the
Squid
folks are working on:
http://www.mnot.net/cache_channels/
and
I'm trying to understand the purpose of the -u user option for
varnishd. It appears that even when starting up as root, and the
child process dropping to nobody, Varnish is still saving and
serving from cache even though nobody doesn't have read/write access
to the storage file owned by
On Apr 14, 2008, at 11:03 PM, Per Andreas Buer wrote:
Ricardo Newbery skrev:
I'm trying to understand the purpose of the -u user option for
varnishd. It appears that even when starting up as root, and the
child process dropping to nobody, Varnish is still saving and
serving from cache even
On Apr 14, 2008, at 11:25 PM, Florian Engelhardt wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:20:11 -0700
Ricardo Newbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 14, 2008, at 11:03 PM, Per Andreas Buer wrote:
Ricardo Newbery skrev:
I'm trying to understand the purpose of the -u user option for
varnishd
On Apr 15, 2008, at 12:15 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Ricardo Newbery writes:
I'm trying to understand the purpose of the -u user option for
varnishd. It appears that even when starting up as root, and the
child process dropping to nobody, Varnish is still saving and
serving from cache
Noticed some odd behavior.
On page with an already-expired Expires header (Expires: Sat, 1 Jan
2000 00:00:00 GMT) and no other cache control headers, a stock install
of Varnish 1.1.2 appears to be applying the built-in default_ttl of
120 seconds when instead it should just immediately
On Apr 20, 2008, at 2:44 AM, Ricardo Newbery wrote:
Noticed some odd behavior.
On page with an already-expired Expires header (Expires: Sat, 1 Jan
2000 00:00:00 GMT) and no other cache control headers, a stock install
of Varnish 1.1.2 appears to be applying the built-in default_ttl of
120
On Apr 20, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Ricardo Newbery wrote:
On Apr 20, 2008, at 2:44 AM, Ricardo Newbery wrote:
Noticed some odd behavior.
On page with an already-expired Expires header (Expires: Sat, 1 Jan
2000 00:00:00 GMT) and no other cache control headers, a stock
install
of Varnish
On Apr 20, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 8240BA9F-
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ricardo N
ewbery writes:
I see in rfc2616.c that this behavior is intentional. Varnish
apparently assumes a clockless origin server if the Expires date
is not in the future and then applies
On May 1, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Ricardo Newbery wrote:
On May 1, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Ricardo Newbery wrote:
Just poking around the tracker and I noticed some activity on the
example plone vcl. http://varnish.projects.linpro.no
On May 5, 2008, at 6:02 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
Are there any good reasons not to run Plone with the CacheFu (or
CacheSetup) product installed? Would a non-CacheFu example be of any
use?
CacheSetup monkeypatches a fair amount of things, which breaks some
On Nov 4, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Miles wrote:
Ryan Tomayko wrote:
On 11/4/08 12:51 PM, Miles wrote:
I know varnish doesn't do If-None-Match, but I don't think that is a
problem in this scheme.
I'm curious to understand why Varnish doesn't do validation /
conditional GET.
Has
Your app server should set the Vary on *all* responses if *any*
response can vary.
Ric
On Dec 4, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Jeff Anderson wrote:
Our app servers are sending the Vary on the Accept-Encoding when
compression is requested. If compression is not requested they do not
perform the
On Jan 21, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Charlie Farinella wrote:
I have one site running Plone with lighttpd and Varnish that I set
up as
documented here:
http://bitubique.com/content/accelerate-plone-varnish
IMHO, the vcl generated by the plone.recipe.varnish recipe is superior
to the one on
On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:11 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
1. Purge vs. Ban
-
The CLI and VCL commands are named purge, but they don't, they
add a ban to the list of bans.
I would actually like to rename purge to ban and add a real purge
function that gets rid of the current
On Jan 28, 2009, at 2:23 AM, Anton Stonor wrote:
sub vcl_recv {
set req.grace = 120s;
set req.backend = backend_0;
}
Is this truly all you have in vcl_recv? This will mean that any
cookied requests will get passed. Is this intentional?
Ric
On Jan 28, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Anton Stonor wrote:
Ricardo Newbery skrev:
sub vcl_recv {
set req.grace = 120s;
set req.backend = backend_0;
}
Is this truly all you have in vcl_recv? This will mean that any
cookied
requests will get passed. Is this intentional
On Jan 29, 2009, at 12:34 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 4980f7d8.8090...@giraffen.dk, Anton Stonor writes:
New try. First, a request with no expire or cache-control header.
10 RxProtocol b HTTP/1.1
10 RxStatus b 200
10 RxResponse b OK
10 RxHeader b Server:
On Feb 13, 2009, at 4:54 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Ole Laursen o...@iola.dk writes:
I looked up private here
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html
and it says
Indicates that all or part of the response message is intended
for a single user and MUST NOT be
39 matches
Mail list logo
