RE: [squid-users] caching dynamic image content

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry <td3201_at_gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:28 PM
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>
Cc: squid-users_at_squid-cache.org <squid-users_at_squid-cache.org>
Subject: Re: [squid-users] caching dynamic image content

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Amos Jeffries<squid3_at_treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> Terry wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Terry<td3201_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Amos Jeffries<squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Terry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have squid implemented yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am researching a web architecture issue I am seeing with a site.
>>>>> Squid may be a bandaid for what I think may be some poor development
>>>>> architecture decisions. There are concerns that the site is written
>>>>> in a way that browsers and reverse proxies cannot cache it
>>>>> appropriately. And these aren't my concerns by the way. We also have
>>>>> A10 load balancers in house that do some caching. They said they
>>>>> can't cache this content. I don't want to go into their reasoning
>>>>> because I don't believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's an example of an image as seen from the client. I pulled this
>>>>> right out of my firefox memory cache:
>>>>> http://foo.domain.com/Image.aspx?i=db1edbcd-2375-4bae-b33f-a53ced60deed
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. If it's in the memory cache, can I assume that browsers and proxies
>>>>> can cache it? Also, I never saw these objects in my disk cache. Not
>>>>> sure if that's significant or not.
>>>>
>>>> No. The browser has additional information such as who is logged in and
>>>> whether your session with the website is the same. They are also allowed
>>>> to
>>>> cache objects personal to you.
>>>>
>>>> Proxies and caches only have the URL and some other limited data to base
>>>> the
>>>> checking on. If there is any chance it was a private object it will not
>>>> be
>>>> cached naturally.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Does firefox still interpret this as an image and cache it as one
>>>>> or is this considered dynamic content that may be problematic?
>>>>
>>>> Not enough information to even guess. What headers are present? Does the
>>>> website require login? does the same image ever change URL (including
>>>> the
>>>> query string) and why/when/how often? are alternative image formats
>>>> available at the exact same URL?
>>>>
>>>> Any one of those answers may make the object non-cacheable by shared
>>>> proxies.
>>>>
>>>>> I think that's enough information to start a conversation. Thanks for
>>>>> any insight!
>>>>
>>>> foo.domain.com does not resolve here so I can't verify the object.
>>>> Please pick some of the URLs and enter them into http://www.redbot.org
>>>> for
>>>> review of cacheability.
>>>>
>>>> Amos
>>>> --
>>>> Please be using
>>>> Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE6 or 3.0.STABLE18
>>>> Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.13
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you both for replying. I haven't messed with squid and caching
>>> for 5+ years and its all slightly coming back to me. The identifier
>>> in the URL is not unique based upon the session of the user.
>>> https://foo.domain.com/Image.aspx?i=db1edbcd-2375-4bae-b33f-a53ced60deed
>>>
>>> the i=db1edbcd-2375-4bae-b33f-a53ced60deed is a unique identifier for
>>> the image and its size. Based on that, it should be cacheable but
>>> the developers are setting it to nocache for some reason. I am
>>> guessing they reused some code for other dynamic content and failed to
>>> see this aspect.
>>>
>>
>> Just to further prove its not being cached, here's the header:
>>
>>
>> GET /Pic.aspx?i=db1edbcd-2375-4bae-b33f-a53ced60deed HTTP/1.1
>> Host: foo.domain.com
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
>> rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
>> Accept: image/png,image/*;q=0.8,*/*;q=0.5
>> Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
>> Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
>> Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
>> Keep-Alive: 300
>> Connection: keep-alive
>> Referer: https://foo.domain.com/
>> Cookie: com.domain.foo_SessionID=kua4ew454kjodsjpdlojdu55
>> Cache-Control: max-age=0
>
> The reply headers are kind of more important for the reply is what gets
> stored.
>
>
> Um, just in case it has not already been done...
> check that the QUERY ACL and its "cache deny" rule are removed from your
> squid.conf and "refresh_pattern -i (/cgi-bin/|\?) 0 0% 0" is added on the
> line above the dot '.' refresh pattern.
>
>
> Amos
> --
> Please be using
> Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE6 or 3.0.STABLE18
> Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.13
>

Thank you. Yes, that was done. I found my resolution through the
assistance of squid. In short, devs were specifying no-cache, which I
figured out quickly, but without making those changes, I wanted to see
the benefits of caching. I saw a 350% performance increase by
throwing squid in front in reverse mode. Thanks all for your replies.
Received on Fri Aug 14 2009 - 23:52:02 MDT