>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:46:14 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> said:
> fre 2006-06-30 klockan 17:24 +0200 skrev Andreas J. Koenig:
>> I'd be very happy, if the squid team could reconceive this as a buggy
>> behaviour. Isn't it wonderful to improve software by just removing a
>> few lines?
> It's a tradeoff. As the comment says there is not really any benefit in
> refreshing 0-sized objects as the overhead is the same as a full
> request.
> I would think what you want to change is actually the 60 seconds limit a
> few lines earlier... this limit is suitable for normal forward proxies
> in most setups, but reverse proxies may have quite different
> requirements.
Yes, you're right, this solves the problem for *us* and it's nice that
Squid 3.0 has it configurable with the minimum_expiry_time parameter.
I still don't get it why the code lets downstream Squids with default
minimum_expiry_time cache our 1-byte answers but not our 0-byte
answers. This behaviour adds latency and traffic because our not
changing headers are sent over again and again and they are always
over 400 byte.
-- andreasReceived on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 02:32:31 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 12:00:01 MDT