On 14/05/2016 12:05 a.m., Dzaczek wrote: > Again miss > i check on smaller picture and change cache minimum_obejc_size 0 and removed min-size > > 1463141030.059 39 10.150.21.23 TCP_REFRESH_UNMODIFIED/304 539 GET http://miscmedia-9gag-fun.9cache.com/images/featured/1462860779.7596_WaQy8A_300.jpg - HIER_DIRECT/108.161.188.132 - > 1463141030.108 18 10.150.21.23 TCP_CLIENT_REFRESH_MISS/200 693 GET http://miscmedia-9gag-fun.9cache.com/favicon.ico - HIER_DIRECT/108.161.188.132 image/x-icon > These are not MISS. Despite what that second one looks like. The first one was stale, but on revalidate the server informed Squid it was still the latest copy ('UNMODIFIED/304'). The second one was for a client who required a revalidation. The server delivered a whole new object (the 'MISS/200' bit). > 2016/05/13 13:03:50.058 kid1| 20,2| store.cc(954) checkCachable: StoreEntry::checkCachable: NO: not cachable > 2016/05/13 13:03:50.059 kid1| 20,2| store.cc(954) checkCachable: StoreEntry::checkCachable: NO: not cachable > 2016/05/13 13:03:50.059 kid1| 20,2| store.cc(954) checkCachable: StoreEntry::checkCachable: NO: not cachable > 2016/05/13 13:03:50.059 kid1| 20,2| store.cc(954) checkCachable: StoreEntry::checkCachable: NO: not cachable > 2016/05/13 13:03:50.059 kid1| 20,2| store.cc(954) checkCachable: StoreEntry::checkCachable: NO: not cachable The 304 response message itself is not cacheable. Also, the object it is updating is already in cache so does not need re-saving there. It might have had some timestamp updates etc, but bug #7 still affects Squid-3. > 2016/05/13 13:03:50.108 kid1| 20,2| store_io.cc(42) storeCreate: storeCreate: Selected dir 0 for e:=sw1p2DV/0x291a860*4 > The new object received in the 200 response message was saved to cache. That looks as expected for these two. Amos _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
