2006/5/3, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
ons 2006-05-03 klockan 10:35 +0200 skrev Aurélien Bras: > "If you add a no_cache rule after Squid has been running for a while, > the cache may contain > some objects that match the new rule. Prior to Squid Version 2.5, > these previously cached > objects might be returned as cache hits. Now, however, Squid purges > any cached response for a request that matches a no_cache rule." Yes, but this doesn't mean the cached content will be purget. Only that requests matching your no_cache rules will not look into the cache and their result will not be cached. Other requests for the same URL but not matching your no_cache rules will be cached as usual. > First request : MISS ok. > Second request : REFRESH_HIT on FRONT and REFRESH_MISS on BACK > > Not good Why?
My object is STALE, the refresh should be good and make a HIT, but BACK make un MISS, is mean that the object is dowloaded another time, am I wrong ?
> , after disable : #no_cache deny BACK > > Thirst request REFRESH_HIT on FRONT and REFRESH_HIT on BACK > > It's ok but BACK can put new objects in cache :( Why is this better?
Because the object isn't dowloaded, I save the bandwitch.
Regards Henrik -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEWHcJB5pTNio2V7IRAqUdAJ4wgn9ixqSe7CLhVmUiw2hvDiArugCfZcUz mQ9VHa6y3iAXZw1qudkZC5A= =Ldxj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
