httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niklas Edmundsson <ni...@acc.umu.se>
Subject Re: mod_cache: Don't update when req max-age=0?
Date Thu, 24 May 2007 11:22:47 GMT
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Sander Striker wrote:

>> >> ---------8<-----------
>> >> Does anybody see a problem with changing mod_cache to not update the
>> >> stored headers when the request has max-age=0, the body turns out not
>> >> to be stale and the on-disk header hasn't expired?
>> >> ---------8<-----------
>> >
>> > My understanding:
>> >
>> > It's fine in an RFC point of view for the cache to completely ignore a
>> > 304 and not update the stored entity at all. But the response to this
>> > request should be the merge of the two responses assuming the
>> > conditional was added by the cache.
>> 
>> This is in line with my understanding, and since the response-merging
>> is being done today the only change that would be done is to skip
>> storing the header to disk. I think it would be wise to only skip the
>> storing for the max-age=0 case though.
>
> Why limit it to the the max-age=0 case?  Isn't it a general improvement?

Consider a default cache lifetime of 86400 seconds, and requests 
coming in with max-age=40000 (we see a lot of mozilla downloads with 
this, for example). If you don't rewrite the on-disk headers you'll 
end up always hitting your backend when you pass an age of 40000.

In the max-age=0 case you only force an unneccesary header write, 
because:
a) The written header won't be useful for other requests with
    max-age=0. A ground rule of caching is to not save stuff that's
    never used.
b) Requests with max-age!=0 aren't helped much by it, the only penalty
    would be when an max-age!=0 request causes a header rewrite that
    an max-age=0 access would have performed. Doing this single rewrite
    instead of potentially thousands if rewriting due to max-age=0
    is a rather big win.
c) RFC-wise it seems to me that a not-modified object is a
    not-modified object. There is no guarantee that next request will
    hit the same cache, so nothing can expect a max-age=0 request to
    force a cache to rewrite its headers and then access it with
    max-age!=0 and get headers of that age.
d) Also, an object tend to be accessed with more-or-less the same
    max-age. So to store headers in the max-age=0 case just because it
    might be accessed by max-age!=0 makes no sense, since it's more
    likely that the next request to this object will have the same
    max-age.


/Nikke
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se      |     nikke@acc.umu.se
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Did I just step on someones toes again??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Mime
View raw message