Thanks for that. The problem is the following: I have an *extremely* complicated, large and poorly written web application. While it was intended to cache gracefully and properly, the coders that came before me (after the base product but before the end of the guarantee! I'm now maintaining it) just went ahead and wrote like pigs, not taking any consideration of this. To show the homepage causes around 200 database connections. And the site is extremely slow... and more than a few hundred simultaneous users and the site simply dies... and yet I have been asked to find a solution, without spending the time necessary to redo all the modules that don't allow proper caching. And with NO budget. So we get rid of the parts of the site that simply can't be cached on the most used pages, and for the rest, which is 2000-odd pages - 25, let it do its 200 db connections. Anyway, I was getting away with myself. I DO have a need for this, and it looks as though mod_cache is a much better choice for all the caching I've ever needed to do so far (only reverse proxy acceleration and load balancing) as my use case is taken into account in the most basic way. Thanks for all your help! Best wishes, Anton 2008/5/22 Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On ons, 2008-05-21 at 17:11 +0200, Anton Melser wrote: >> Hi, >> I'm struggling to get the logic right for only caching certain pages - >> it seems very easy to do the negative (don't cache ...) but the >> converse doesn't seem possible... I must be missing something. > > To allow caching of only some URLs then allow those, then deny > everything.. > > The default is to cache. If it doesn't get cached then the content most > likely do not want to be cached. If this is your problem then see the > following: > > http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/ > http://www.mnot.net/cacheability/ > > > Regards > Henrik > -- echo '16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D4D465452snlbxq' | dc This will help you for 99.9% of your problems ...
