Re: [squid-users] squid and php-sites

hi henrik,

1) refresh_pattern . 0 20% 4320
if i understand your note correctly, this is not correct for php-sites???
but it should, since the dot finds any object, doesn't it?
nevertheless, i also tried
refresh_pattern \.php 0 20% 4320
with the same effect (see 2)

2)
if i do the request for test.php i see:
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Daten: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:00:00 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.27 PHP/4.1.2
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.1.2
Content-Type: text/html
X-Cache: MISS from test.de
Connection: close

hi-php

(the last line is the content of the file)
and still it is not in the cache

does this help in finding an explanation?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Nordstrom" <hno@squid-cache.org>
To: "alp" <alpheus@gmx.de>
Cc: <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] squid and php-sites

> Two questions:
>
> 1. What is your refresh_pattern settings?
>
> 2. What is the full headers returend by your server?
>
> Just tested this with Squid-2.5 and a reply with only a Date header and
> some content is cached if your refresh_pattern says it should be.
>
>
> Note: The default refresh_pattern settings does not cache such replies
> for the reasons indicated before.
>
> Regards
> Henrik
>
>
> alp wrote:
> >
> > sorry, i misunderstood your first reply.
> > BUT:
> > i have a site test.php (without any php-code, just for testing the
suffix)
> > on an apache server.
> > it sends this site only with the DATE-header. no lastmod, no expires. it
> > also does not mark the object as not cacheable.
> > so the refresh-pattern IS used, as you say.
> >
> > so, first call:
> > echo -e "GET /test.php HTTP/1.0\nHost:myhost\n\n" | netcat squidserver
80
> > gives the file together with the above header (date)
> > second call:
> > echo -e "GET /test.php
> > HTTP/1.0\nHost:myhost\ncache-control:only-if-cached\n\n" | netcat
> > squidserver 80
> > it says: object is not in cache.
> >
> > ???
> > doing the same with a file test.html i see the lastmod header and it is
of
> > course cached.
> >
> > i still seem to miss some important point in understanding this, i
guess.
> > but for me it seems as if the refresh-pattern is not used.
>
Received on Sat Feb 15 2003 - 00:44:15 MST