On 26 March 2012 11:55, Ryan Chan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jonathan Matthews <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On 25 March 2012 05:15, Ryan Chan <[email protected]> wrote:Your >> responses are probably being cached because of the default >> default_ttl setting, which you'll find detailed a little way down >> >> https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/3.0/reference/varnishd.html#run-time-parameters. >> > 1. I am wondering why `default_ttl of 120s is a good thing`, if the backend > don't specify the ttl, shouldn't just pass it and not cache it would be the > safest option? Hard coding 120s sound evil to me.
I can't disagree with you there, personally :-) I always drop this to 0s so I can insist that the back-end devs request caching be enabled by explicitly setting the appropriate headers. > 2. I am using 2.1, so sound like hard coding the ttl is the best choice > then? You'll find the 2.1 documentation is still available on the site. In some ways it's actually a bit easier to find your way around than the current 3.0 docs. *Most* 3.0 functionality is available in 2.1. default_ttl definitely is, however. Jonathan -- Jonathan Matthews London, Oxford, UK http://www.jpluscplusm.com/contact.html _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
