www-mirrors mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wojtek Sylwestrzak <W.Sylwestr...@icm.edu.pl>
Subject Re: some updates
Date Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:56:23 GMT
> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Wojtek Sylwestrzak wrote:
> > Most of the bigger caches I know try not to cache cgi scripts
> > (based on regex against the url of the cached object). Because
> > they are afraid cgi means dynamic contents that might not be
> > intended for caching.
> Hmm, that's a bad decision, as some CGI output is eminantly cacheable.
> The CGI author should be responsible for setting appropriate
> last-modified or expires headers.  

Of course they should. and there should be no problem in caching cgi
in the light of http specs. The problem is that most cgi authors don't care.
Especially about expires which would be essential here.

On the other side caches need to be driven by popular demand.
Otherwise they get not popular and eventually - not effective.

So if users say "we are getting stale cgi script output from the cache",
the cache administrator tries to disable cgi caching.
Simply in order not to discourage users.

I know it's bad. but it's reality. hopefully it'll change.
but then again if you think of all this sites maliciously setting
already expired date in the 'Expire:' header ... :-(

> > one more remark on caching - it's important that mirrors
> > look *exactly* the same as the original site (that's why
> > we call them 'mirrors' after all :-))
> > Because some caches try to redirect to local resources.
> That's also not a wise move.  How does the bug database work?
>   http://www.apache.org/bugdb.cgi 
> No wonder we haven't gotten any user complaints from Poland :)

I see. The move was not wise without some closer investigation first.
But I still think the idea is worthwhile. Especially that modern
cache software provides this 'remap' feature.
Any idea how to solve it here ?


View raw message