On Apr 8, 2008, at 8:26 AM, DHF wrote:
> Ricardo Newbery wrote:
>> Regarding the potential management overhead... this is not relevant
>> to the question of whether this strategy would increase your site's
>> performance. Management overhead is a separate question, and not
>> an easy one t
Ricardo Newbery wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:30 PM, DHF wrote:
>
>> Ricardo Newbery wrote:
>>> On Apr 7, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>>
Sure, but this is also the sort of content that can be cached back
upstream using ordinary HTTP headers.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it
On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:30 PM, DHF wrote:
> Ricardo Newbery wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sure, but this is also the sort of content that can be cached back
>>> upstream using ordinary HTTP headers.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, it cannot. Again, the use case is dyna
Ricardo Newbery wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
>
>
>> Sure, but this is also the sort of content that can be cached back
>> upstream using ordinary HTTP headers.
>>
>
>
> No, it cannot. Again, the use case is dynamically-generated content
> that is subject
On Apr 7, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Ricardo Newbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
Again, "static" content isn't only the stuff that is served from
filesystems in the classic static web server scenario. There are
plenty
>> of
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Ricardo Newbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Again, "static" content isn't only the stuff that is served from
> > > filesystems in the classic static web server scenario. There are plenty
> of
> > > "dynamic" applications that process content from database -- a
On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Ricardo Newbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
>> Again, "static" content isn't only the stuff that is served from
>> filesystems in the classic static web server scenario. There are
>> plenty of
>> "dyn
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Ricardo Newbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, "static" content isn't only the stuff that is served from
> filesystems in the classic static web server scenario. There are plenty of
> "dynamic" applications that process content from database -- applying skin
Sascha Ottolski wrote:
> Am Freitag 04 April 2008 18:11:23 schrieb Michael S. Fischer:
>
>> Ah, I see.
>>
>> The problem is that you're basically trying to compensate for a
>> congenital defect in your design: the network storage (I assume NFS)
>> backend. NFS read requests are not cacheable by
On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:50 AM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ricardo Newbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
>> Well, first of all you're setting up a false dichotomy. Not
>> everything
>> fits neatly into your apparent definitions of dynamic versus
>> static. Yo
Am Freitag 04 April 2008 18:11:23 schrieb Michael S. Fischer:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > you are right, _if_ the working set is small. in my case, we're
> > talking 20+ mio. small images (5-50 KB each), 400+ GB in total
> > size, and it's grow
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you are right, _if_ the working set is small. in my case, we're talking
> 20+ mio. small images (5-50 KB each), 400+ GB in total size, and it's
> growing every day. access is very random, but there still is a good
> am
Am Freitag 04 April 2008 11:50:51 schrieb Michael S. Fischer:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ricardo Newbery
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, first of all you're setting up a false dichotomy. Not
> > everything fits neatly into your apparent definitions of dynamic
> > versus static. Your
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ricardo Newbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, first of all you're setting up a false dichotomy. Not everything
> fits neatly into your apparent definitions of dynamic versus static. Your
> definitions appear to exclude the use case where you have cacheable c
Am Freitag 04 April 2008 10:11:52 schrieb Stig Sandbeck Mathisen:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:01:57 +0200, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > I definetely did nothing like this, I've observed restarts "out of
> > the blue". I'm no giving the trunk a try, hopefully there's an
> > improvement
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:01:57 +0200, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I definetely did nothing like this, I've observed restarts "out of
> the blue". I'm no giving the trunk a try, hopefully there's an
> improvement to that matter.
If the varnish caching process dies for some reason, the
Am Freitag 04 April 2008 04:37:44 schrieb Ricardo Newbery:
> sub vcl_fetch {
> if (obj.ttl < 120s) {
> set obj.ttl = 120s;
> }
> }
>
> Or you can invent your own header... let's call it X-Varnish-1day
>
> sub vcl_fetch {
>
Am Freitag 04 April 2008 01:32:28 schrieb DHF:
> Sascha Ottolski wrote:
> > however, my main problem is currently that the varnish childs keep
> > restarting, and that this empties the cache, which effectively
> > renders the whole setup useless for me :-( if the cache has filled
> > up, it works g
On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:46 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Ricardo Newbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
>> URL versioning is usually not appropriate for html
>> pages or other primary resources that are intended to be reached
>> directly by
>> the end user and w
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Ricardo Newbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> URL versioning is usually not appropriate for html
> pages or other primary resources that are intended to be reached directly by
> the end user and whose URLs must not change.
Back to square one. Are these latter reso
On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Ricardo Newbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
and I d
Sascha Ottolski wrote:
> however, my main problem is currently that the varnish childs keep
> restarting, and that this empties the cache, which effectively renders
> the whole setup useless for me :-( if the cache has filled up, it works
> great, if it restarts empty, obviously it doesn't.
>
>
Am Donnerstag 03 April 2008 21:45:25 schrieb Michael S. Fischer:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Ricardo Newbery
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > and
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Ricardo Newbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > and I don't wan't upstream caches or browsers to cache that long, only
> >
On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> and I don't wan't upstream caches or browsers to cache that long,
>> only
>> varnish, so setting headers doesn't seem to fit.
>
> Why not? Just curious.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and I don't wan't upstream caches or browsers to cache that long, only
> varnish, so setting headers doesn't seem to fit.
Why not? Just curious. If it's truly cachable content, it seems as
though it would make sense
Am Donnerstag 03 April 2008 19:30:25 schrieb Michael S. Fischer:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > All this with 1.1.2. It's vital to my setup to cache as many
> > objects as possible, for a long time, and that they really stay in
> > the cache. Is
Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> All this with 1.1.2. It's vital to my setup to cache as many objects as
>> possible, for a long time, and that they really stay in the cache. Is
>> there anything I could do to prevent
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All this with 1.1.2. It's vital to my setup to cache as many objects as
> possible, for a long time, and that they really stay in the cache. Is
> there anything I could do to prevent the cache being emptied? May be
>
Am Donnerstag 03 April 2008 18:07:53 schrieb DHF:
> > how can this be? My varnish runs for about 36 hours now. yesterday
> > evening, the resident memory size was like 10 GB, which is still
> > way below the available 32. later that evening, I stopped letting
> > request to the proxy over night. no
Am Donnerstag 03 April 2008 18:07:53 schrieb DHF:
> Sascha Ottolski wrote:
> > how can this be? My varnish runs for about 36 hours now. yesterday
> > evening, the resident memory size was like 10 GB, which is still
> > way below the available 32. later that evening, I stopped letting
> > request to
Sascha Ottolski wrote:
> how can this be? My varnish runs for about 36 hours now. yesterday
> evening, the resident memory size was like 10 GB, which is still way
> below the available 32. later that evening, I stopped letting request
> to the proxy over night. now I came back, let the request b
Hi,
how can this be? My varnish runs for about 36 hours now. yesterday
evening, the resident memory size was like 10 GB, which is still way
below the available 32. later that evening, I stopped letting request
to the proxy over night. now I came back, let the request back in, and
am wondering
33 matches
Mail list logo
