On 02/01/2013 12:04 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 02/01/2013 09:42 AM, Luciano Ruete wrote: >> I've tested with >> >> maximum_object_size_in_memory 64 KB >> >> And now I have both cache_dir AUFS and rock caching objects and growing >> at the same time, so thanks for that. >> >> But I don't understand the logic behind this, because from the docs >> about maximum_object_size_in_memory >> you read: >> >> "This should be set high enough to keep objects >> accessed frequently in memory to improve performance whilst low >> enough to keep larger objects from hoarding cache_mem." >> >> So, i don't see how this can interfere with saving large cache objects >> into a cache_dir, when the idea of this directive is just preventing >> larger object to hoarding cache_mem... can you elavorate on this? > > Do HTTP responses that you want to cache have a Content-Length header? > If there is no Content-Length header, then, AFAIK, Squid will only cache > them to disk if Squid can cache them in memory (or if the whole response > has been received when the decision to cache on disk has to be made). Err.. It is actually worse: Even if Content-Length is known, if your cache_dirs have max-size set, then Squid will not cache objects that cannot be cached in memory. I think this is a bug. I will follow up using your bug 3752 report. Thank you, Alex.
