Search squid archive

Re: Squid reverse-proxy. How it decides when to refresh?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 02/09/17 00:18, Alexander Lazarev wrote:
Well. looks like squid using heuristics after all:
2017/09/01 14:49:12.296 kid2| 22,3| refresh.cc(291) refreshCheck: checking freshness of 'http://mydomain.zone/1.txt' 2017/09/01 14:49:12.296 kid2| 22,3| refresh.cc(312) refreshCheck: Matched '<none> 0 20%% 259200' 2017/09/01 14:49:12.296 kid2| 22,3| refresh.cc(314) refreshCheck: age:    65955 2017/09/01 14:49:12.296 kid2| 22,3| refresh.cc(316) refreshCheck: check_time:     Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:49:12 GMT 2017/09/01 14:49:12.296 kid2| 22,3| refresh.cc(318) refreshCheck: entry->timestamp:       Thu, 31 Aug 2017 17:29:57 GMT 2017/09/01 14:49:12.296 kid2| 22,3| refresh.cc(179) refreshStaleness: No explicit expiry given, using heuristics to determine freshness 2017/09/01 14:49:12.296 kid2| 22,3| refresh.cc(198) refreshStaleness: Last modified 5524975 sec before we cached it, L-M factor 20.00% = 1104995 sec freshness lifetime 2017/09/01 14:49:12.296 kid2| 22,3| refresh.cc(205) refreshStaleness: FRESH: age 65955 <= stale_age 1104995 2017/09/01 14:49:12.296 kid2| 22,3| refresh.cc(338) refreshCheck: Staleness = -1 2017/09/01 14:49:12.296 kid2| 22,3| refresh.cc(461) refreshCheck: Object isn't stale.. 2017/09/01 14:49:12.296 kid2| 22,3| refresh.cc(470) refreshCheck: returning FRESH_LMFACTOR_RULE

It's a shame there's no warning header, like "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-5.5.4"; suggests.

There should be when that cached response becomes 24 hrs old. That log says Squid only received the object ~18 hrs ago, so the cached *response* has not been around for 24hrs yet even though the *content* it refers to on the server is older.

Content on a server being old is no particular cause for alarm if it gets cached a few seconds/hrs/mins on a proxy.

Though note that Warning headers about heuristics being used are an OPTIONAL, so it is also not a problem if they are absent.

Guess, I need to set refresh_pattern's max option to minimal value.


Any particular reason you are worried about all this?

Heuristic freshness is normal and usually perfectly fine. A proxy making heuristic decisions is only a problem if it is ignoring server or client instructions about the content cacheability. Also, a reverse-proxy as an agent of the server effectively has permission to ignore things the client wants - though it is usually a good idea to do a background revalidation if the client insists strongly on new content (eg. reload-into-ims option), because that tends to mean there is some problem with what it got earlier [maybe whats in the cache].


On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Alexander Lazarev wrote:

    Thank you for reply!
    I still don't understand what's happening.
    I create file 1.txt with a little bit of text data. Request it with
    curl. Web-server returns it without any cache related headers to
    squid, squid returns it to me. Getting it with curl one more time,
    squid serves it straight from cache without validation(no entries in
    log on origin server).
    I create one more file 2.txt with some data. Do same things, same
    headers in response. Second response from squid is from cache but
    validated from origin server(i see 304 in origin server logs).
    What could be wrong?

Nothing wrong. Both sequences are valid and normal. The difference could just be a timing variation as small as a nanosecond in what operations are performed relative to each other - with heuristics based on 0.2 of a recently created objects age HTTP's 1 second in timing resolution is both very course and very sensitive to rounding limits.

Amos
_______________________________________________
squid-users mailing list
squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Samba]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Linux USB]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux