Re: [RFC] cache architecture

From: Henrik Nordström <henrik_at_henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:20:07 +0100

ons 2012-01-25 klockan 15:03 +1300 skrev Amos Jeffries:

> We also need to enumerate how many of these cases are specifically
> "MUST purge" versus "MUST update". The update case is a lot more lenient
> to sync issues than purges are.

The case which matters here is that update actions done by a user should
be immediately visible by the same user after accepted by the requested
server.

i.e. POST/PUT/DELETE etc need to invalidate any cached representation of
the requested URL or Content-Location of response when same host.

Note: This do not really work well today when there is siblings
involved.

> NOTE that we do have sideband means of purging when necessary to
> actually purge: IPC packets doing HTCP CLR equivalent between the
> workers. Or plain old HTCP CLR between unique HTCP port for each worker.

HTCP multicast?

Regards
Henrik
Received on Wed Jan 25 2012 - 08:17:42 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jan 26 2012 - 12:00:13 MST