[varnish] Re: [varnish] Re: [varnish] renaming varnish concepts...
phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Wed Jan 28 13:19:35 CET 2009
In message <768C2A99-6D24-4D6F-B324-25E13CFBE0F7 at digitalmarbles.com>, Ricardo N
>On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:31 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <79A2CE8A-
>> A135-4542-9C8C-1F4327FED5F2 at digitalmarbles.com>, Ricardo N
>> ewbery writes:
>>> Sorry, I'm still unclear...
>>> Right now, doesn't purge_url also "ban" all Varys?
>> Yes, but they won't be dealt with until they take a catch-hit. The
>> idea is to deal with them all once we find the first one.
>>> If so, then why would it matter whether a PURGE request resulted in a
>>> real "purge" or a "ban"?
>> It would get things out of the system faster.
>> This may not make a big difference to most sites, but very interactive
>> sites can have a LOT of purges going on.
>Cool... so why do you figure that backwards compatibility is not
>possible? If my old purge scripts now start "purging" rather than
>"banning", why should anything break?
Purge wouldn't be a CLI command
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-misc