On Wednesday 23 January 2008 01:26:54 Max Baumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are seeing a large drop off in our ability to handle a load with
> large file sizes(70k) and slower connections. My guess is that this
> is an issue around the number of concurrent connections we're able to
> handle.
why? wha
Hi,
We are seeing a large drop off in our ability to handle a load with
large file sizes(70k) and slower connections. My guess is that this
is an issue around the number of concurrent connections we're able to
handle. Does this sound right? Any tips on varnish / os /
infrastructure con
Thanks a lot Erik, this did it! Requests to the subdomain are no longer
cached. Great! :-) Going live with this configuration right now..
> Sending another one, the previous got messed up (using a webmail client)
>
> Neither am I a regex expert, but I dont think that the regex is the
> problem. Yo
Sending another one, the previous got messed up (using a webmail client)
Neither am I a regex expert, but I dont think that the regex is the problem.
You are using http.url instead of using http.host.
And if im not totally wrong, you dont need the ~ to check the host, you can use
==.
Change th
Original Message ---
Hello list,
I installed varnish on a staging system today and I am totally impressed
by the performance.
Unfortunately I'm no regex expert, so I will need your help with this
config issue.
I want to use varnish for a domain - lets call it "example.com"
