From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,URIBL_BLOCKED shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Original-To: unicorn-public@bogomips.org Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FD9E1F5D9 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:42:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id h11so24268691wiw.3 for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 04:42:57 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=3WUOimVOCILZnFP7HDDKe3SjRYn+EeFI8hoQKpp1DW4=; b=T+OAl7lfhrhRi3zx6YBjqeZHaUmksHt5J9V+X311SS/exFI6SAqFtJ9d9+MnBkvKWz wvvh25pZx/plELP/rUkUaWVP9ut8Vwd3cmDFmtLybjGbJ2/HV0Kh+/3dIcnMqfsDQmQ7 xteBsQGn5Tr9eIkig/8OpmrggAapaKtlrLbmU5FS0r67vYFKUhy9Xn7ujImxS95z0nf2 qQArtrWAE58MEY8xEOlcNHJGS9j/neL6YH+rcUQdl/DkHqe6WBtCzNmZZV0ZNkpcUNF2 lJsVbdRMzqy8fXtvA3y6HL7dPNhyXPuqxm2jvTax4xkeOsG0eI9fz6Ti33O69OUzVEQy 33GQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlxQpo45vKck/9ko5dEasmVD8nS1ZdCmgYr5+tj5JR9Z6BzUzgdRU6TS5ATTf4OwEkrC/uk X-Received: by 10.180.109.46 with SMTP id hp14mr52161869wib.54.1417610576879; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 04:42:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.27.130.10 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 04:42:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Xavier Noria Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:42:16 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: No, passenger 5.0 is not faster than unicorn :) To: unicorn-public Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: PublicInbox::Filter 0.0.1 List-Id: I've often found Cache-Control: public to be of limited use in practice because you cannot invalidate that cache by hand. (Sometimes that's fine of course.) While the reverse proxy cache could provide a mechanism for explicit expiration, there may be caches between your servers and the client, a corporate cache for example. Those other ones are out of your control. I suggested an extension for Rack::Cache called r-maxage that got merged: https://github.com/rtomayko/rack-cache/pull/55 With that directive you trade the benefits of caching in intermediate proxies with more expiration control locally.