On 07/11/2013 05:03 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 11/07/2013 11:40 p.m., Eliezer Croitoru wrote: >> I have been testing quite some time some urls for cachability. >> It seems like there are different methods to request the same file which >> leads to different reaction in squid and I want to make sure 100% what >> is the cause to the *problem* before I am running to a conclusion since >> I am not 100% sure. >> Please take your *free* time to read it and see if there is something I >> probably missed with hope to understand the issue in hands.\ > > As you probably noticed from the final diagnois of the last weird case > you brought up it can be important to consider both pairs of > request/reply between both client-squid and squid-server. Either side of > Squid can affect the overall transaction behaviour... > > Can you state exactly what the problem is up front? that is a little > unclear from your text. Sorry about it. The problem is that admins and me analyse the access.log and consider a X_HIT response to be a valid HIT response. I think that the way cache admin analyse the log and understand what the log means is different from admin to admin. I wanted to explain in a more detailed way the logic I was explaining before but since I am not always full of words about it I can describe it in couple ways and not touch the other admin. I wanted to make sure that: 1. there is or there isn't a bug related to Vary headers. 2. make sure I understand where in plain view without digging into the code I understand the bugs and squid behaviour. 3. not just talk without a more detailed debug logs. 4. prove\show squid 3.2\3 changes that you have mentioned about the no-cache directive which should be documented in a more detailed way. Since admins dosn't understand it in many cases like I wasn't sure and pretty confused about it I believe that it helped and will help others understand the issue. I think that now that the ignore-no-cache was removed there is might be a need to add a Warning message while parsing squid.conf that will tell admins about the new behaviour of refresh_pattern. There is the "Removed option ignore-no-cache. Its commonly desired behaviour is obsoleted by correct HTTP/1.1 Cache-Control:no-cache handling." But It took me pretty while to actually notice it was there and understand the meaning of it. What do you think Amos? (Sorry that I cannot send a patch proposal for that now) Eliezer
