On 10/25/2012 1:30 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 26/10/2012 12:06 a.m., Ben wrote:
Hi Amos,
For my curiosity, I again checked same traffic with 3.1.19 and it is
working fantastic.
I really feel that, in 3.1.19 squid caching performance is superb
while considering 3.2.3.
I would request that once you verify caching mechanism of 3.2.3 with
3.1.19. I mean some changes are there at code level or something.
We verify against the HTTP RFC 2616 caching requirements directly. Both
versions follow slightly different requirements dues to differences in
HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 connection protocol they output. On the whole 3.2
can cache more, but revalidates more often and more strictly at times
than 3.1.
It could be something like the If-* or max-age features the browser is
omitting from 3.1 requests due to HTTP/1.0 being on that connection.
Sadly you will need to use tcpdump to grab headers from 3.1 and it is
not as easy to correlate them in wireshark.
There always the option to dump packets into file and later open the
captured data in wireshark. (this is what I do if and when I need to
capture really huge amount of traffic that later filtered).
Regards,
Eliezer
Amos
--
Eliezer Croitoru
https://www1.ngtech.co.il
IT consulting for Nonprofit organizations
eliezer <at> ngtech.co.il
