fre 2007-01-19 klockan 12:05 +0100 skrev Laurikainen, Tuukka: > As you can see, the cache_peer server2 is not used (no cache_peer_access exists). When you have no cache_peer_access limiting which peers may be used then they are all candidates to be used. > However, when accesing the the site1.com, the following could be seen in access.log: > > 1168861138.061 140 client_ip TCP_MISS/200 550 POST https://site1.com/path/to/app.swe - FIRST_UP_PARENT/ip_server_1 text/html > 1168861138.124 28 client_ip TCP_MISS/404 1875 GET https://site1.com/path/to/app.swe? - ANY_PARENT/ip_server_2 text/html > > How is this possible? It actually happened with two different sites published through the proxy, and always the requests were forwarded to the server2. > The proxy is used to publish a lot of sites and I haven't bee able to figure out why the requests of these two were forwarded to this server. Squid most likely tries the first, gets an error and then tries the second trying to find a successful path where the request can be forwarded. Regards Henrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
