Hello all,
I have been using Varnish with its default configuration for quite
sometime now.
Absolutely nothing has changed except for the backed servers port number
(set to 8000).
Needless to say that it has been performing brilliantly and has reduced
the load on our webservers considerably.
Hello all,
Please accept my apologies for posting this without complete
understanding about varnish.
The reason for the static content not being cached was cookies.
Everything is well and good after a slight tinkering of the
configuration file.
I, again, apologies for not being responsible
Hi Dag-Erling Smørgrav,
Thank you for your response.
It was the cookies.
Forcing varnish to cache requests even if cookies are present does the
trick.
Thank you again.
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Anup Shukla [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If i request, say for example, a static jpeg, i assume that
Anup Shukla [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If i request, say for example, a static jpeg, i assume that the first
request will be served by the webserver via varnish, and all later
requests would be served by varnish, without asking for it from the
webserver, that is till the object exceeds its
Hi!
I have a question about measuring bandwith usage with varnishstat.
I would expect 'Total header bytes' and 'Total header bytes' to be
the total number of bytes sent to clients since varnishd was started?
Measuring these numbers at different points in time could therefore be
used to calculate
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_R
=F8sdal?= writes:
* Initial values:
556874988 Total header bytes
20238688347 Total body bytes
* 75 minutes later:
848969031 Total header bytes
30800272652 Total body bytes
The problem is that the correct values are 40 times larger
than
Andreas Røsdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would expect 'Total header bytes' and 'Total header bytes' to be
the total number of bytes sent to clients since varnishd was started?
Yes.
Measuring these numbers at different points in time could therefore be
used to calculate the bandwith usage.
Hi!
I attached a patch with the changes necessary to get the 1.0 branch to
compile *and* run on Mac OS X. I don't know autoconf well enough to
integrate it properly, so it's just the changes, not a full mergable
patch. The changes are very simple and should apply to trunk as well. On
