Re: icp_hit_stale? Why?

Oskar Pearson wrote:

> Sure, your cache (that had the object) is going to get the object for
> your cache that didn't, but I don't see the point if the
> cache-that-didn't is going to either:
>
> 1) get it from you anyway, since you are a parent

But not neccesary THE parent. There may be other parents.

> 2) get it directly, since you are a sibling

This is true in Squid 2.2 as siblings will not allow HTTP requests to
stale objects. Not so in earlier releases not obeying Cache-Control:
only-if-cached.

The use of icp_hit_stale is to make better use of refreshes in an cache
mesh. Unfortunately the only-if-cached flag on sibling requests prevents
most of it's practical uses.

Perhaps we should add a cache_peer tag for disabling the use of
only-if-cached for selected siblings? That would make icp_hit_stale
useful again.

/Henrik
Received on Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:15:57 MDT