On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:09:04 -0500, Niall Murphy
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:09:08 -0500
Mark Staudinger <[email protected]> wrote:
It might also be useful to capture some varnishlog output and
determine what objects are being stored in the Transient pool, and
whether or not your "shortlived" parameter, or default grace value
needs to be adjusted. Even if you do determine you need to do some
things differently here that will prevent the Transient pool from
growing beyond your ideal limit, IMO it's a good idea to keep this
limited anyway.
Hi Mark,
I took a look into ttl < 10s objects and saw that they are requests we
intentionally apply either "max-age=0, private" or "no-cache, private"
to. However their storage field is still "malloc Transient", and
transient storage usage only appears to be going up.
Any ideas how to investigate further?
It's varnish 5.0.0-1, and this didn't happen with 4.1, thought there
may well have been configuration changes since then.
Regards,
--
Niall
Hi Niall,
It's not clear if you actually wish to cache these requests.
The best way to proceed would be to look at the output of varnishlog for a
few sample requests, and see what the values are for the "TTL" log entry,
and make sure they match the desired settings/behavior. Not that if you
change TTL/grace/keep settings during the request, there will be multiple
entries in the log. Here's a sample entry for an object that was not
cached:
-- TTL VCL 0 0 0 1480436502
Best,
-=Mark
_______________________________________________
varnish-misc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
