Re: [squid-users] Re: File not cached in memory?

Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 13.08.2010, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
>> Did the object arrive with known content-size header?
>
> This is what I get from the server when requesting the file:
>
> htd@liesel:~> wget --server-response -O - http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/patch-2.6.35-git13.bz2
> --2010-08-13 15:04:31-- http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/patch-2.6.35-git13.bz2
> Resolving www.kernel.org... 199.6.1.164, 130.239.17.4
> Connecting to www.kernel.org|199.6.1.164|:80... connected.
> HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:04:31 GMT
> Server: Apache/2.2.15 (Fedora)
> Last-Modified: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:01:10 GMT
> ETag: "a3398e-68fefb-48db33d108d80"
> Accept-Ranges: bytes
> Content-Length: 6881019
> Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=1000
> Connection: Keep-Alive
> Content-Type: application/x-bzip2
> Length: 6881019 (6.6M) [application/x-bzip2]
> Saving to: `STDOUT'
> [....]
>
> There's no explicit "content-size" header, but I think the
> "Content-Length" header reflects the files size.
>
>> In the absence of a known content size that can be used to determine
>> its best caching position Squid will be conservative and assume it's
>> going to be a huge ISO or DVD sized thing. Causing a disk save.
>
> Thank you for pointing this out.
> So I assume the "Content-Length" header is not used by squid?

Sorry, typo on my part. Content-Length was correct.

Yes that should have been cached to memory on its own merits.

Amos

-- 
Please be using
   Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.6
   Beta testers wanted for 3.2.0.1