Igor Sysoev wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 09:26:22AM -0400, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
>
>
>> Igor Sysoev wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:09:34PM -0400, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is now logging "HIT" or "MISS" for each request in that location block.
>>>>
>>>> It is safe to assume that with fastcgi_cache_min_uses set at 2 that for
>>>> every first miss shared memory is allocated, that the file is written to
>>>> the cache on the second miss, and that each logged "hit" is an actual
>>>> serve from the cache (third and subsequent requests for the file)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes. Currently, there are "MISS", "EXPIRED", "STALE", "UPDATING", and "HIT"
>>> states. If you will think out a good name for state when miss is just
>>> counted,
>>> but not cached, I will make this state.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> "MISS-NOT_CACHED" fairly well tells the story, if it's not too long.
>> Otherwise "MISS-NC".
>>
>> Or perhaps "MISS-COUNTING".
>>
>
> May be just "COUNTING" ?
>
>
So the first miss would be "MISS", subsequent misses would be
"COUNTING"? Or vice versa? Either way would be good for me.


Jim