[varnish] Re: Cacheability - changed in Varnish 2?

[Ricardo Newbery]

On Jan 29, 2009, at 1:57 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <49817D5C.10807 at giraffen.dk>, Anton Stonor writes:
>> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I can tell, a zero TTL (number after "RFC") can only
>>> happen here if your default_ttl parameter is set to zero, OR
>>> if there is clock-skew between the varnish machine and the
>>> backend machine.
>>
>> Right on!
>>
>> Backend is running on the same box as Varnish for this test. But: you
>> are right about default TTL being 0.
>
> I hope we don't ship varnish that way on any platforms, the default
> ttl should be 120 seconds...


I'm guessing he was using the wrapper provided by plone.recipe.varnish  
which sets a zero default ttl upon startup.  It does this to route  
around the default Varnish behavior when seeing an Expires date in the  
past.  This is discussed in more detail in this thread...

http://projects.linpro.no/pipermail/varnish-misc/2008-April/thread.html#1689

But again, I'm unclear why the obj.ttl he set in the vcl doesn't just  
override the default.

Ric