In message <[email protected]>, Luc Stroobant writes: >obj.ttl seems to be zero indeed, but I still don't get how his would >make the request cacheable. At least it's not the behaviour one would >expect?
We distinguish between "can be cached" and "how long should it be cached" because they are very different questions. "can be cached" is a matter of correctness, whereas "how long" is just a performance issue. >Secondly: I also thought that Varnish never caches requests with a >Set-cookie header? Varnish has a special kind of cache entries called "hit-for-pass". This is a cache entry that says that the object can not be cached, that solves a pile-up issue on busy objects. The fact that you see zero TTL, can be indicative of the clock on the varnish-host and the clock on the backend not agreeing what time it is. Check your ntpd. -- 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-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
