On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 00:18 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On ons, 2008-05-21 at 14:03 -0600, Dan Trainor wrote: > > It would make sense as to why Squid would be handing out a UDP_MISS for > > that, since it would also make sense that Squid has no desire to cache > > directories > > Squid does not make a distinction between a directory and a page or > another HTTP objects. It's all HTTP objects. > > But on most servers directory listings is dynamically generated and by > default not cacheable. > > However. directories with an index page quite often is cachable. For > example http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.0/ > > Regards > Henrik Hello, Henrik - That would make perfect sense in what I saw, seeing as where were no index pages being served from the URL which I saw as part of the miss. Thanks for the explanation. Thanks -dant
