Re: [squid-users] An example to squid cache affecting user-agents(Firefox,Chrome,wget\curl)

On 12/07/2013 3:20 a.m., Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 05:03 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 11/07/2013 11:40 p.m., Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>>> I have been testing quite some time some urls for cachability.
>>> It seems like there are different methods to request the same file which
>>> leads to different reaction in squid and I want to make sure 100% what
>>> is the cause to the *problem* before I am running to a conclusion since
>>> I am not 100% sure.
>>> Please take your *free* time to read it and see if there is something I
>>> probably missed with hope to understand the issue in hands.\
>> As you probably noticed from the final diagnois of the last weird case
>> you brought up it can be important to consider both pairs of
>> request/reply between both client-squid and squid-server. Either side of
>> Squid can affect the overall transaction behaviour...
>>
>> Can you state exactly what the problem is up front? that is a little
>> unclear from your text.
> Sorry about it.
> The problem is that admins and me analyse the access.log and consider a
> X_HIT response to be a valid HIT response.
> I think that the way cache admin analyse the log and understand what the
> log means is different from admin to admin.
> I wanted to explain in a more detailed way the logic I was explaining
> before but since I am not always full of words about it I can describe
> it in couple ways and not touch the other admin.
>
> I wanted to make sure that:
> 1. there is or there isn't a bug related to Vary headers.
> 2. make sure I understand where in plain view without digging into the
> code I understand the bugs and squid behaviour.
> 3. not just talk without a more detailed debug logs.
> 4. prove\show squid 3.2\3 changes that you have mentioned about the
> no-cache directive which should be documented in a more detailed way.
> Since admins dosn't understand it in many cases like I wasn't sure and
> pretty confused about it I believe that it helped and will help others
> understand the issue.
>
> I think that now that the ignore-no-cache was removed there is might be
> a need to add a Warning message while parsing squid.conf that will tell
> admins about the new behaviour of refresh_pattern.

There is. You see it with -k parse.

> There is the "Removed option ignore-no-cache. Its commonly desired
> behaviour is obsoleted by correct HTTP/1.1 Cache-Control:no-cache handling."
>
> But It took me pretty while to actually notice it was there and
> understand the meaning of it.

Do you have any better wording?

Amos
Received on Thu Jul 11 2013 - 16:44:42 MDT