[geeks] faster www cache

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Thu, 07 Sep 2006 @ 14:43 -0500, Lionel Peterson said:

> My gut says that unless you have a small browser cache, and you vist
> the same sites repeatedly, there is minimal benefit to running a cache
> for a single user. If you re-deployed that one gig as the browser
> cache I think you'd see a bigger benefit (when the browser cache is
> hit, the netowrk overhead is eliminated if retrieved from local
> cache)...

Just one other datapoint.

I decided to count the HIT and MISS lines in the access.log file.

This tells a different story.  Every line in that file is either HIT or
MISS (refresh, memory, etc).

The counts are:

HIT: 984373
MISS: 571738

Kind of odd, because all the analysis tools show a low hit rate, unless
I don't know what HIT and MISS really mean in that file.

Also interesting is that a lot of static URLs never get cached, even if
I force squid to ignore the pragma no-cache, or there isn't one for
a site.

I'll play around a bit now that my interest is piqued.



-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- [There is a limit to how stupid people really
are -- just as there's a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the Universe. 
There's a lot, but there's a limit.  -- Dave C. Barber on a.f.c.  ]