Denis Brækhus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You should get a varnishlog entry for the TTL computation when an
> > object is retrieved from the backend, but there won't be a log entry
> > for VCL changing the TTL...
> Ok, thanks. I guess what I am
"Denis Brækhus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, 1.1.2 is being considered now, but up until 1.1.2 my
> impression has been 1.0.4 was the best build with regards to
> stability. We have had varnish nodes running for 6-8 months now
> without interruption or any problems whatsoever.
Until 1.1.2,
- "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > setup with regards to TTLs and cacheability. I'd like to be able to
> > inspect a specific cached objects TTL to see if my "set obj.ttl"
> > overrides actually work or not. What is the best way to do that?
> You should get a varnishlog entr
Denis Brækhus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I really am looking for is some help with how to best debug the
> setup with regards to TTLs and cacheability. I'd like to be able to
> inspect a specific cached objects TTL to see if my "set obj.ttl"
> overrides actually work or not. What is the bes
Hi,
We have a setup with varnish in front of a lighttpd+fastcgi combo. For some
reason or other the application doesn't send any cache control headers. Instead
of doing the sensible thing (prodding the developers to fix it in the backend)
I have taken it upon myself to fix it via VCL.
However
