VCL storage discussion summary

[Federico Schwindt]

Why? Is there anyone depending on this feature? When do you want to use it?
Wouldn't be easier to visualise and/or explain what is going where if it's
done explicitly?
Also, if we allow this shouldn't be a way to disable it?

My problem with this is two fold: 1, it's not documented AFAICT; and 2.
people specifying the wrong storage by mistake ends up using another
storage and causing evictions (seen this in a customer).

Since the definition and usage is done separately, it is not that difficult
to get it wrong, specially when you change one but forget to update the
other.

This also means that we cannot say that default means the first
non-Transient storage for cache insertions.



On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>
wrote:

> --------
> In message <CAJV_h0ZBAgQ-pknesZgE08ckL83rQ2F+
> g5PX0Xcd6ukqn+ACdQ at mail.gmail.com>
> , Federico Schwindt writes:
>
> >- No more RR on storages by default. If this is wanted, it should be set
> >explicitly somehow (VMOD?)
>
> I agree with the rest, but this on I think would be unwise, we should
> retain the RR behaviour.
>
> --
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-dev/attachments/20161010/ab42c2e2/attachment.html>