Re: no caching for sites with framesets..

From: Duane Wessels <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:29:22 -0600

On Wed, 10 May 2000, Marc-Adrian Napoli wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Running squid on linux no probs, except for this one i can't work out:
>
> acl BLAH dst www.logosafe.com.au
> no_cache deny BLAH
>
> Seems fair enough yes? It all works, except for the fact that this site is
> based on frames and .swf files and all other funky stuff.
>
> This is a tail of my access.log when i go to the www.logosafe.com.au
> webpage:
>
> TCP_IMS_HIT/304 192 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/ - NONE/- text/html
> TCP_IMS_HIT/304 192 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/frame_bannerindex.html -
> NONE/- text/html
> TCP_IMS_HIT/304 192 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/frame_mainindex.html -
> NONE/- text/html
> TCP_IMS_HIT/304 192 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/graphix/Getflash.gif -
> NONE/- image/gif
> TCP_IMS_HIT/304 207 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/intro.swf - NONE/-
> application/octet-stream
> TCP_MISS/304 212 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/frameset.html -
> DIRECT/www.logosafe.com.au -
> TCP_MISS/304 212 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/frame_left.html -
> DIRECT/www.logosafe.com.au -
> TCP_IMS_HIT/304 207 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/logo.swf -
> NONE/-application/octet-stream
> TCP_MISS/304 212 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/topbuthome.html -
> DIRECT/www.logosafe.com.au -
> TCP_MISS/304 212 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/frame_mid.html -
> DIRECT/www.logosafe.com.au -
> TCP_MISS/304 212 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/home.html -
> DIRECT/www.logosafe.com.au -
> TCP_MISS/304 211 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/music.swf -
> DIRECT/www.logosafe.com.au -
> TCP_IMS_HIT/304 207 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/topbuthome.swf - NONE/-
> application/octet-stream
> TCP_MISS/304 210 GET http://www.logosafe.com.au/graphix/home.jpg -
> DIRECT/www.logosafe.com.au -
>
> Am i missing something here? I don't want the proxy to HIT for any of the
> pages!
>
> Perhaps it has something to do with the TCP_IMS_HIT? I just can't find any
> webpage that tells me what that means :-]

Could it be that the objects already got cached before you added the
'no_cache' rule?

Duane W.
Received on Tue May 09 2000 - 20:32:47 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:53:25 MST