pauamma: Cartooney crab wearing hot pink and acid green facemask holding drink with straw (Default)
Res facta quae tamen fingi potuit ([personal profile] pauamma) wrote in [site community profile] dw_dev2010-10-04 05:59 pm

Do we want to import this change?

http://community.livejournal.com/changelog/9267963.html

I'm not sure of the implications. Will the extra headers this causes perlbal to add give us better caching, worse, or indifferent?
exor674: Computer Science is my girlfriend (Default)

[personal profile] exor674 2010-10-04 07:55 pm (UTC)(link)
As is, nothing -- we'd need a Perlbal (config?) change to spit out the headers too when ?v=1 is present.
exor674: Computer Science is my girlfriend (Default)

[personal profile] exor674 2010-10-04 08:24 pm (UTC)(link)
theoretically, depending on what headers the perlbal changes set, and assuming we rarely change the icons, could reduce load a bunch. Right now we don't serve ANY cache control headers, so telling the browser to keep the static images around could help -- but could also lead to them having old images blah blah -- Does seem like a good idea though.

Might be a better way to do it though, especially since we add a v=xxxxxxxxx to the JS urls, would be to send cache-control headers with everything on s.dreamwidth.org ( and check if there's anything there that we don't want to cache, of course )
alierak: (Default)

[personal profile] alierak 2010-10-04 08:51 pm (UTC)(link)
Don't browsers keep small static files around by default anyway though? I thought the purpose of the ?v=1 and perlbal hack was so you could force clients to uncache static files more quickly.
exor674: Computer Science is my girlfriend (Default)

[personal profile] exor674 2010-10-04 09:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Assuming that is right then, JUST adding v=1 to our images will do nothing to improve caching.