default hit_for_pass usage

Poul-Henning Kamp phk at
Wed Aug 24 12:30:50 CEST 2011

In message <20110823071405.GE1944 at>, Andreas Plesner Jacobsen writes:
>I was just going through the docs, updating examples to 3.0 syntax.
>I fell over something that bothered me:
>Has a section on increasing hit_for_pass ttl. I discussed rewriting this
>section with DocWilco on irc, and we came to the conclusion that the current
>default vcl may not be completely sane. For example, it looks like a 500 will
>cause varnish to hit_for_pass for the next two minutes, even though the next
>request could result in a nice cacheable 200.
>Any ideas? Was this already considered when writing the default?

No it was not.  The basic premise was that we don't want to pile up
the waiting list too often, and in fact much longer TTLs were proposed.

I have no opinion on this matter.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

More information about the varnish-dev mailing list