On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Per Buer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Yang Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> What I found last time was: >> >> (1) Fetch a page. Miss first time, hit subsequent times. >> >> (2) Restart Varnish. >> >> (3) Fetch same page. Miss. > > Right. This is actually valid behavior. The goal of the persistent > storage isn't to salvage _all_ of the data across a restart, only to > salvage _most_ of the data. Salvaging all of the data would require > database type storage semantics which is more or less impossible to > achieve without scarifying a lot of persistence. > > As -spersistent is implemented, the storage silo which is open at the > time of the crash/restart is discarded completely, so most of the > objects inserted into the cache the last few seconds before the crash > will certainly be lost. Remember, we're a cache, not a data store.
Those are the semantics I'm interested in. That's perfect, thanks for your explanation - sounds like -spersistence may work for us. -- Yang Zhang http://yz.mit.edu/ _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
