Transient storage killing memory

[Niall Murphy]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:26:50 -0500
Mark Staudinger <mark.staudinger at nyi.net> wrote:
> 
> It's not clear if you actually wish to cache these requests.
> 
> The best way to proceed would be to look at the output of varnishlog
> for a few sample requests, and see what the values are for the "TTL"
> log entry, and make sure they match the desired settings/behavior.
> Not that if you change TTL/grace/keep settings during the request,
> there will be multiple entries in the log. Here's a sample entry for
> an object that was not cached:
> 
> --  TTL            VCL 0 0 0 1480436502
> 

Hi,

I've observed that the requests I don't want to cache have ttl and
max-age = 0 as intended, but that they're stored in transient storage
regardless.

"Hit-For-Pass is now actually Hit-For-Miss"
https://varnish-cache.org/docs/5.0/whats-new/changes-5.0.html

I don't understand the finer repercussions of this but I thought it
would result in less transient storage, not more.

Also I have

if ( beresp.http.Pragma ~ "no-cache" || beresp.http.Cache-Control ~
"no-cache" || beresp.http.Cache-Control ~ "private") {
	 set beresp.uncacheable = true;
	 set beresp.ttl = 120s;
	 return (deliver);
} else {
	unset beresp.http.set-cookie;
}

in vcl_backend_response. So i'm wondering if .uncacheable even applies
to transient storage.

Despite the counters going up, "varnishlog -q HitPass" returns nothing.