Re: [varnish] Re: Cacheability - changed in Varnish 2?
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: Zope/(Zope 2.10.6-final, python 2.4.5, linux2) ZServer/1.1 Plone/3.1.5.1 10 RxHeader b Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:10:40 GMT 10 RxHeader b Content-Length: 4 10 RxHeader b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 9 ObjProtocol c HTTP/1.1 9 ObjStatusc 200 9 ObjResponse c OK 9 ObjHeaderc Server: Zope/(Zope 2.10.6-final, python 2.4.5, linux2) ZServer/1.1 Plone/3.1.5.1 9 ObjHeaderc Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:10:40 GMT 9 ObjHeaderc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 10 BackendReuse b backend_0 9 TTL c 1495399095 RFC 0 1233187840 0 0 0 0 As far as I can tell, a zero TTL (number after RFC) can only happen here if your default_ttl parameter is set to zero, OR if there is clock-skew between the varnish machine and the backend machine. Make sure both machines run NTP. You can test that they agree by running ntpdate -d $backend on the varnish machine (or vice versa). But would this matter since he is resetting the obj.ttl to 1 day in vcl_fetch? Ric ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: [varnish] Re: Cacheability - changed in Varnish 2?
In message 9e3c9108-eb3a-485c-adc0-948860f4b...@digitalmarbles.com, Ricardo N ewbery writes: 9 TTL c 1495399095 RFC 0 1233187840 0 0 0 0 But would this matter since he is resetting the obj.ttl to 1 day in vcl_fetch? Yes, the RFC2616 based TTL is calculated before vcl_fetch is run. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: [varnish] Re: Cacheability - changed in Varnish 2?
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 ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: [varnish] Re: Cacheability - changed in Varnish 2?
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? No, this is not a production setup. My problem is not that I cache too much, but the opposite. And yep, I know about the cookie issue: http://markmail.org/message/pfpx7lanicpumsdg Thanks for noticing. /Anton ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
[varnish] Re: Cacheability - changed in Varnish 2?
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? No, this is not a production setup. My problem is not that I cache too much, but the opposite. And yep, I know about the cookie issue: http://markmail.org/message/pfpx7lanicpumsdg Thanks for noticing. /Anton Sorry, I'm confused. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but the cookie issue will mean that you will cache too little, not too much. Ric ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc