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 > in the correct thread. Consider using the mailing list directlyby jeeeff - Nginx Mailing List - English
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 same when the cache is being refreshed (I don't see why it would be different?), but that is not theby jeeeff - Nginx Mailing List - English
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 behave like I described above. However, if the element in the cache already exists, but is expired (accby jeeeff - Nginx Mailing List - English