Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

support varnish management port for banning #61

Open
dbu opened this issue May 8, 2014 · 5 comments
Open

support varnish management port for banning #61

dbu opened this issue May 8, 2014 · 5 comments

Comments

@dbu
Copy link
Contributor

dbu commented May 8, 2014

instead of sending special requests to the varnish frontend (and have rules that check every request for being a purge from the webserver), one could also use the tcp interface of varnish to send ban / purge requests over a different channel.

the user of the bundle should be able to call the same methods whether he uses the frontend purge controller or the one using the administration port.

http://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/3.0/reference/varnishd.html#management-interface

see also TODO in https://github.com/liip/CacheControlBundle/blob/master/Helper/Varnish.php

@dbu
Copy link
Contributor Author

dbu commented May 15, 2014

@ddeboer
Copy link
Member

ddeboer commented May 16, 2014

VarnishAdmin requires the Varnish PECL module, which doesn't seem to be available as a system package at least on Debian/Ubuntu and RedHat/CentOS. For me, this is an import reason to create our own client.

@dbu dbu added the on hold label May 20, 2014
@ddeboer
Copy link
Member

ddeboer commented Jul 20, 2014

By the way, it seems varnishadm does not support purge and refresh. Should we then implement our proxy client’s purge() method as a simple ban? We could fake refresh by banning first and then requesting the URL right after.

@dbu
Copy link
Contributor Author

dbu commented Jul 20, 2014

hm. i guess that is always possible. or we allow to have several clients in the admin, one for purge and another one for ban. though the main value of having a varnishadm ban client would be that you don't need to clutter your varnish configuration with invalidation things.
what about refresh?

but lets get 1.0 out before we start on this. if its a new proxy client implementation, we can easily add it in 1.1

@ddeboer
Copy link
Member

ddeboer commented Jun 26, 2015

Doesn’t need custom VCL, so that’s good.

ddeboer added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 5, 2015
@dbu dbu added in progress and removed on hold labels Aug 15, 2015
dbu pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 26, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants