cache empties itself?

Ricardo Newbery ric at
Thu Apr 3 20:53:40 CEST 2008

On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Sascha Ottolski <ottolski at>  
> wrote:
>> and I don't wan't upstream caches or browsers to cache that long,  
>> only
>> varnish, so setting headers doesn't seem to fit.
> Why not?  Just curious.   If it's truly cachable content, it seems as
> though it would make sense (both for your performance and your
> bandwidth outlays) to let browsers cache.
> --Michael

Can't speak for the OP but a common use case is where you want an  
aggressive cache but still need to retain the ability to purge the  
cache when content changes.  As far as I know, there are only two ways  
to do this without contaminating downstream caches with potentially  
stale content... via special treatment in the varnish config (which is  
what the OP is trying to do) or using a special header that only your  
varnish instance will recognize (like Surrogate-Control, which as far  
as I know Varnish does not support out-of-the-box but Squid3 does).


More information about the varnish-misc mailing list