Cache questions

[merlin corey]

COUNTING made good sense to me and was suitably succinct, and I have
no proble with MISSED-NOTCACHED or MISSED-NC.  UNCACHED seems good
too, but it could be confusing some new (and old) that this means it
was removed from cache, I think.

2009/7/14 Marcus Clyne <maccaday at gmail.com>:
> 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".
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
> How about "UNCACHED"?
>
> Marcus
>
>