Re: Behaviour of UDP_HIT_OBJ requests ?

scoanc@thor.cf.ac.uk writes:

>I've noticed an unexpected behaviour in my squid 1.0.5 cache's handling
>of UDP_HIT_OBJ replies, and would welcome confirmation whether it is
>intended or accidental.
>
>If my cache gets a large document from a neigbour (through UDP_HIT
>followed by a GET) then the document is not cached by my cache, and the
>next browser request for the document will have exactly the same result.
>If on the other hand the document is small enough to fit in the UDP reply
>packet (ie the response is UDP_HIT_OBJ) then my cache *does* save it, and
>can handle future requests for the document without reference to the
>neigbour.
>
>This behaviour is a logical extension of the UDP_HIT_OBJ scheme to
>minimise traffic in small objects (at very little cost in local disk
>space) but it does lead to several neigbour caches having copies of the
>same document, whereas for larger documents only one would keep a copy.
>
>Before I include this behaviour in a document, could someone confirm
>whether it is likely to stick around in future versions of the software ?

Before answering that, we need to know why your cache is not keeping
the larger object? Is it because its *too* large? Or did you use
a 'proxy-only' option on the 'cache_host' line? Or is it because
the object has no expires/last-modified/date headers?

Duane W.
Received on Thu Aug 15 1996 - 08:52:33 MDT