Re: [varnish] renaming varnish concepts...
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 object (ie: one found in the cache) and possibly its Vary: siblings. Purge does sound like it will be gone, whereas ban better explains what happens when we use the delayed regexp checks. Obviously, if I co-opt purge to mean something different, backwards compat is not possible, and all your purge scripts and VCLs with purge facilities will break. Can you explain what is the effective difference between a real purge and a ban? Would both still kill all the Vary siblings? Other than possibly releasing the memory quicker, I'm not sure why I should care :-) Ric ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: [varnish] Re: [varnish] renaming varnish concepts...
In message 79a2ce8a-a135-4542-9c8c-1f4327fed...@digitalmarbles.com, Ricardo N ewbery writes: Sorry, I'm still unclear... Right now, doesn't purge_url also ban all Varys? Yes, but they won't be dealt with until they take a catch-hit. The idea is to deal with them all once we find the first one. If so, then why would it matter whether a PURGE request resulted in a real purge or a ban? It would get things out of the system faster. This may not make a big difference to most sites, but very interactive sites can have a LOT of purges going on. -- 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] renaming varnish concepts...
In message e9dd9378-1dae-4077-a0c6-149dbac0c...@digitalmarbles.com, Ricardo N ewbery writes: On Jan 28, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message 768C2A99-6D24-4D6F- b324-25e13cfbe...@digitalmarbles.com, Ricardo N ewbery writes: Cool... so why do you figure that backwards compatibility is not possible? If my old purge scripts now start purging rather than banning, why should anything break? Purge wouldn't be a CLI command Ah, okay... why not? Because you don't have a cached object at hand to purge, all you can do from the CLI is to add bans that will deal with the objects when they are found in the cache later on. Your question is -exactly- why I want the rename: purge sounds like something happens to the object right now, and that is not possible from the CLI context. -- 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] renaming varnish concepts...
Why is it not possible to purge a URL from CLI for a particular host ? -Paras On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Ricardo Newbery r...@digitalmarbles.com wrote: On Jan 28, 2009, at 4:30 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message, Ricardo Newbery writes: On Jan 28, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Purge wouldn't be a CLI command Ah, okay... why not? Because you don't have a cached object at hand to purge, all you can do from the CLI is to add bans that will deal with the objects when they are found in the cache later on. Your question is -exactly- why I want the rename: purge sounds like something happens to the object right now, and that is not possible from the CLI context. Sure, I understand the motivation. But FWIW, I already knew what purge meant in the varnish context. I'm just trying to understand the implications of the proposed change. I'm unclear on why we can't acquire the cached object from the CLI to do the purge. I imagine the most common usecase is to purge based on a known url, and with the url don't we have enough information to get at the cache and purge all variants? Ric ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc ___ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
Re: [varnish] renaming varnish concepts...
In message 75cf5800901280825w50d09916r12ece84c832eb...@mail.gmail.com, Paras Fadte writes: Why is it not possible to purge a URL from CLI for a particular host ? You can enter a ban for it. Prior to the new code in -trunk, you need to use purge.hash and construct an appropriate regexp. With the new code, which will possibly be in 2.0.3, you can express it sensibly: purge req.url ~ some_regexp req.http.host ~ some other regexp But we cannot do an object lookup, so we can not reclaim the storage of those objects immediately. -- 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
