Maxim Dounin Wrote:
---
> Hello!
>
> You can find the detailed response to your original message here:
>
> http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx/2016-January/049734.html
>
> Unfortunately, forum interface is broken and is unable to show it
Hello!
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 11:02:31AM -0500, jeeeff wrote:
> Anyone else noticed the same behavior?
>
> I wasn't sure if that kind of behavior was correct, but as I said the lock
> works properly and only one request get forwarded to the backend server when
> there is no cached item in the c
Anyone else noticed the same behavior?
I wasn't sure if that kind of behavior was correct, but as I said the lock
works properly and only one request get forwarded to the backend server when
there is no cached item in the cache (that is: the cache is empty), so to me
the behavior should be the sa
Hello!
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 07:13:11PM -0500, jeeeff wrote:
> My understanding of proxy_cache_lock is that only one request should be
> passed to the proxied server for a given uri, even if many requests from the
> same uri/key are hitting nginx while it is being refreshed.
>
> When the cache
My understanding of proxy_cache_lock is that only one request should be
passed to the proxied server for a given uri, even if many requests from the
same uri/key are hitting nginx while it is being refreshed.
When the cache folder specified in the proxy_cache_path is empty, it works
well and behav
