In message <[email protected]>, Andreas Plesner Jacobsen writes: >I was just going through the docs, updating examples to 3.0 syntax. > >I fell over something that bothered me: > >https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/faq/general.html#troubleshooting > >Has a section on increasing hit_for_pass ttl. I discussed rewriting this >section with DocWilco on irc, and we came to the conclusion that the current >default vcl may not be completely sane. For example, it looks like a 500 will >cause varnish to hit_for_pass for the next two minutes, even though the next >request could result in a nice cacheable 200. > >Any ideas? Was this already considered when writing the default?
No it was not. The basic premise was that we don't want to pile up the waiting list too often, and in fact much longer TTLs were proposed. I have no opinion on this matter. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
