[varnish] Re: [varnish] Re: Handling of cache-control

Ricardo Newbery ric at digitalmarbles.com
Tue Jan 19 23:05:54 CET 2010

On Jan 19, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Michael Fischer wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Ricardo Newbery <ric at digitalmarbles.com 
> > wrote:
> Other than the private token, the other thing I used to do to tell
> Varnish and clients to cache differently is to attach a special header
> like X-CacheInVarnishOnly or some such (support in Varnish for
> Surrogate-Control would be a better solution).  But recently, I came
> across another strategy.  As far as I can tell, there is no good
> usecase for a non-zero s-maxage token outside your reverse-proxy.  So
> now I just use the s-maxage token to tell Varnish how to cache and
> then strip it from the response headers (or reset to s-maxage=0) to
> avoid contaminating any forward proxies downstream.
> This seems logical to me.  Are there any drawbacks to using  
> Surrogate-Control?
> --Michael

Not that I'm aware of.  Except that only Squid 3.x supports it right  
now  ;-)

Ricardo Newbery

More information about the varnish-misc mailing list