2011/8/18 Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz>: > On 18/08/11 22:53, Kaiwang Chen wrote: >> >> 2011/8/18 Amos Jeffries<squ...@treenet.co.nz>: >>> >>> On 18/08/11 19:40, Drunkard Zhang wrote: >>>> >>>> 2011/8/18 Chen Bangzhong: >>>>> > <snip> >>>> >>>>> I don't know why there are so many disk writes and there are so many >>>>> objects on disk. >>> >>> All traffic goes through either RAM cache or if its bigger than >>> maximum_object_size_in_memory will go through disks. >>> >>> From that info report ~60% of your traffic bytes are MISS responses. A >>> large >>> portion of that MISS traffic is likely not storable, so will be written >>> to >>> cache then discarded immediately. Squid is overall mostly-write with its >>> disk behaviour. >> >> Will a "cache deny" matching those non-storable objects suppress >> storing them to disk? >> And HTTP header 'Cache-Control: no-store' ? > > "no-store" header and "cache deny" directive have the same effect on your > Squid. Both erase existing stored objects and erase the newely received one > _after_ it is finished transfer. > > The difference is that the header applies everywhere receiving the object. > The cache access control is limited to that one Squid instance testing it.
Great. What about "Cache-Control: max-age=0" and "Cache-Control: no-cache" responses? Does squid store them, hoping it is cheaper to make a validatation than to fetch a whole fresh object? Which souce code files describe the logic to deal with such cases? > > Amos > -- > Please be using > Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.14 > Beta testers wanted for 3.2.0.10 > Thanks, Kaiwang
