status codes meanings..

Linda W · *nix forums beginner Joined: 06 May 2005 Posts: 20

I was trying to track down a problem and got distracted on squid status
codes. I was curious on how to interpret these. I extracted the status
codes from each line, sorted, counted and got:

1 TCP_CLIENT_REFRESH_MISS/000
955 TCP_CLIENT_REFRESH_MISS/200
511 TCP_CLIENT_REFRESH_MISS/304
3 TCP_CLIENT_REFRESH_MISS/404
1 TCP_CLIENT_REFRESH_MISS/503
1 TCP_HIT/200
6 TCP_MISS/000
9638 TCP_MISS/200
224 TCP_MISS/206
13 TCP_MISS/301
102 TCP_MISS/302
5 TCP_MISS/303
32 TCP_MISS/304
1 TCP_MISS/403
36 TCP_MISS/404
3 TCP_MISS/504
1 TCP_NEGATIVE_HIT/404
2 TCP_SWAPFAIL_MISS/200
---
I note that most of the above is classified as a TCP_MISS. I'm guessing
that this means that the request wasn't in the "cache", and had to be
fetched?

So, the TCP_CLIENT_REFRESH, does that happen when a page is refreshed?

If something is being refreshed, wouldn't it be likely to be in the
cache?

I notice 1 "TCP_HIT" -- does that mean only 1 item (over several
days) was
found and returned from the cache? (!)

Also not sure -- what would a "SWAPFAIL_MISS" be (besides being a MISS)?
Seems like an odd status to be returned in the normal course of events.

But maybe you see my concern --- if I am interpreting these status codes
properly, only one request in over a week was able to be satisfied out
of the
cache...that can't be...can it?

In the case of the REFRESH, except for an explicit "nocache" type tag,
shouldn't most (or at least "many') of those be serviceable from the cache?

It's hard to believe virtually nothing was cache-able -- or how should
I be interpreting this data? (I know the numeric codes are HTML
response codes and
are easily referenced from documentation; it's the TCP_MISS part that
has me bothered).

Thanks for any "lights"... Smile

Linda

Christoph Haas · *nix forums Guru Wannabe Joined: 05 Mar 2005 Posts: 263

On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 11:50:37PM -0700, Linda W wrote:

Visolve Squid Development · *nix forums addict Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 76

Linda W wrote:

Google