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 at unpredictable intervals but which is > otherwise fairly "static" for some length of time, and where serving > stale content after a change is unacceptable. "Ordinary" HTTP headers > just don't solve that use case without unnecessary loading of the > backend. > Isn't this what if-modified-since requests are for? 304 not modified is a pretty small request/response, though I can understand the tendency to want to push it out to the frontend caches. I would think the management overhead of maintaining two seperate expirations wouldn't be worth the extra hassle just to save yourself some ims requests to a backend. Unless of course varnish doesn't support ims requests in a usable way, I haven't actually tested it myself.
--Dave _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
