I was reading about immutable header and i came across with this article saying that:
Cache-Control: max-age=365000000, immutable
When a client supporting immutable sees this attribute it should
assume that the resource, if unexpired, is unchanged on the server and
therefore should not send a conditional revalidation for it (e.g.
If-None-Match or If-Modified-Since) to check for updates. Correcting
possible corruption (e.g. shift reload in Firefox) never uses
conditional revalidation and still makes sense to do with immutable
objects if you're concerned they are corrupted.
source
I cant understand this phrase "if unexpired, is unchanged on the server and therefore should not send a conditional revalidation"
Client, by default doesnt send a revalidation until the max-age is expired.
So whats the point define immutable in the first place?
People pressing the refresh button.
Facebook, who first proposed this immutable cache-control directive, have a good post on this about how it saved them a huge amount of requests, including this quote:
The problem with reloads
The browser’s reload button exists to allow the user to get an updated
version of the current page. In order to meet this goal, when you
reload, browsers revalidate the page that you are currently on, even
if that page hasn’t expired yet. However, they also go a step further
and revalidate all sub-resources on the page — things like images and
JavaScript files.
Traditionally a browser will parse HTML and then send further requests to the server for all related data. This seems like inefficient to me, since it might require a large number of requests, even though my server already knows that a browser that wants to use this web application will need all of it's resources.
I know that js and css could be inlined, but that complicates server side code and img data as base64 bloats the size of the data... I'm aware as well that rendering can start before all assets are downloaded, which would potentially no longer work (depending on the implementation). I still feel that streaming an entire application in one go should be faster on slow connections than making tens of requests separately.
Ideally I would like the server to stream an entire directory into one HTTP response.
Does any model for this exist?
Does the reasoning make sense?
ps: If browser support for this is completely lacking, I'm wondering about a 2 step approach. Download a small JavaScript which downloads a compressed web app file, extracts it and plugs the resources into the page. Is anyone already doing something like this?
Update
I found one: http://blog.another-d-mention.ro/programming/read-load-files-from-zip-in-javascript/
I started to research related issues in order to find the way to get best results with what seems possible without changing web standards, and I wondered about caching. If I could send the last modified date of every subresource of a page along with the initial HTML page, a browser could avoid asking if modified headers once it has loaded every resource at least once. This would in effect be better than to send all resources with the initial request, since that would be beneficial only on the first load, and detrimental on subsequent loads, since it would be better for browsers to use their cache (as Barmar pointed out).
Now it turns out that even with a web extension you can not get hold of the if-modified-since header and so you surely can't tell the browser to use the cached version instead of contacting the server.
I then found this post from Facebook on how they tried to reduce traffic by hashing their static files and giving them a 1 year expiry date. This would mean that the url garantuees the content of the file. They still saw plenty of unnecessary if-modified-since requests and they managed to convince Firefox and Chrome to change the behaviour of their reload buttons to no longer reload static resources. For Firefox this requires a new cache-control: immutable header, for Chrome it doesn't.
I then remembered that I had seen something like that before and it turns out there is a solution for this problem which is more convenient than hashing the contents of resources and serving them from a database for at least ten years. It is to just a new version number in the filename. The even more convenient solution would be to just add a version query string, but it turns out that that doesn't always work.
Admittedly, changing your filenames all the time is a nuisance, because files referencing these files also need to change. However the files don't actually need to change. If you control the server it might be as simple as writing a redirect rule to make sure that logo.vXXXX.png will be redirected to logo.png (where XXXX is the last modified timestamp in seconds since epoch)[1]. Now let your template system automatically generate the timestamp, like in wordpress' wp_enqueue_script. WordPress actually satisfies itself with the query string technique. Now you can set the expiration date to a far future and use the immutable cache header. If browsers respect the cache control, you can now safely ignore etags and if-modified-since headers, since they are now completely redundant.
This solution guarantees the browser shall never ask for cache validation and yet you shall never see a stale resource, without having to decide on the expiry date in advance.
It doesn't answer the original question here about how to avoid having to do multiple requests to fetch the resources on the same page on a clean cache, but ever after (as long as the browser cache doesn't get cleared), you're good! I suppose that's good enough for me.
[1] You can even avoid the server overhead of checking the timestamp on every resource every time a page references it by using the version number of your application. In debug mode, for development, one can use the timestamp to avoid having to bump the version on every modification of the file.
I am wondering if a browser that already have cached a file with the settings max-age=31536000 will understand that I have changed the max-age settings and therefore request a new file? Or will it wait till its cache has expired (after one year) and then ask for a new file?
Thanks in advance for your help! I haven't been able to find the answer, I'm not a programmer yet (but interested in programming) so I might be using the incorrect terms.
If you serve a resource with max-age=31536000 to a cache, it doesn't need to contact the origin server again until that time has expired.
Or will it wait till its cache has expired (after one year) and then ask for a new file?
Yes, it can do this.
The only way it could learn about the new max-age is to contact the origin server again, and you've expressly said it doesn't need to do that.
Set your max-age responsibly.
We are developing a big Website, and all our Images and Resources are in Amazon S3. We are also using Cloudfront to globally distribute our Content. What we want to to, is to tell the Clients Web Browser to cache our Files, because when we change them, we also will change the URL (Cloudfront does not reflect the change for 24 Hours elsewhere).
We are currently using ETags but this is not optimal becaue the Client still has to do the Request to check if the Resource has changed.
One Solution would be the Expires Header, but we did not find a way to set it relative to the current Date like possible in the Apache Configuration for S3, and we cannot update all Content regularly, because it is pretty much. So we would need a Configuration Option that sets the Expires Header to a Date relative to the current Date for all Content.
Another Solution would be to set Cache-Control: max-age to a certain Value. Does this work? Is it accepted by major Browsers? Will I destroy some caching Algorithms with this? Why does YSlow recommend to set the Expires header but not Cache-Control: max-age?
Any other Recommendations? We are compressing CSS and JS, using Sprites where it is plausible, setting Expires headers and ETags where it is possible, and will soon compress our Images with the Yahoo Compression Tool and gzipping Output.
We did some research on ourself. Seems like the Cache-Control Header does help with telling Cloudfront or a Proxy to set a valid Expires header, but only sometimes ...
We are currently writing a Cron Job to update all Headers in the S3 regularly, because that is one thing that works for sure. Seems like there is no other way. I will keep you posted if there is.
Why do you need the cache duration to be relative to the current date ?
you said :
"when we change them, we also will change the URL"
Which to me means your resources never change. Why not then set an Expires Header to a far far far future date (01/01/2020 for example) ?
If I understand correctly, a broswer caches images, JS files, etc. based on the file name. So there's a danger that if one such file is updated (on the server), the browser will use the cached copy instead.
A workaround for this problem is to rename all files (as part of the build), such that the file name includes an MD5 hash of it's contents, e.g.
foo.js -> foo_AS577688BC87654.js
me.png -> me_32126A88BC3456BB.png
However, in addition to renaming the files themselves, all references to these files must be changed. For exmaple a tag such as <img src="me.png"/> should be changed to <img src="me_32126A88BC3456BB.png"/>.
Obviously this can get pretty complicated, particularly when you consider that references to these files may be dynamically created within server-side code.
Of course, one solution is to completely disable caching on the browser (and any caches between the server and the browser) using HTTP headers. However, having no caching will create it's own set of problems.
Is there a better solution?
Thanks,
Don
The best solution seems to be to version filenames by appending the last-modified time.
You can do it this way: add a rewrite rule to your Apache configuration, like so:
RewriteRule ^(.+)\.(.+)\.(js|css|jpg|png|gif)$ $1.$3
This will redirect any "versioned" URL to the "normal" one. The idea is to keep your filenames the same, but to benefit from cache. The solution to append a parameter to the URL will not be optimal with some proxies that don't cache URLs with parameters.
Then, instead of writing:
<img src="image.png" />
Just call a PHP function:
<img src="<?php versionFile('image.png'); ?>" />
With versionFile() looking like this:
function versionFile($file){
$path = pathinfo($file);
$ver = '.'.filemtime($_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'].$file).'.';
echo $path['dirname'].'/'.str_replace('.', $ver, $path['basename']);
}
And that's it! The browser will ask for image.123456789.png, Apache will redirect this to image.png, so you will benefit from cache in all cases and won't have any out-of-date issue, while not having to bother with filename versioning.
You can see a detailed explanation of this technique here: http://particletree.com/notebook/automatically-version-your-css-and-javascript-files/
Why not just add a querystring "version" number and update the version each time?
foo.js -> foo.js?version=5
There still is a bit of work during the build to update the version numbers but filenames don't need to change.
Renaming your resources is the way to go, although we use a build number and embed that in to the file name instead of an MD5 hash
foo.js -> foo.123.js
as it means that all your resources can be renamed in a deterministic fashion and resolved at runtime.
We then use custom controls to generate links to resources at on page load based upon the build number which is stored in an app setting.
We followed a similar pattern to PJP, using Rails and Nginx.
We wanted user avatar images to be browser cached, but on an avatar's change we needed the cache to be invalidated ASAP.
We added a method to the avatar model to append a timestamp to the file name:
return "/images/#{sourcedir}/#{user.login}-#{self.updated_at.to_s(:flat_string)}.png"
In all places in the code where avatars were used, we referenced this method rather than an URL. In the Nginx configuration, we added this rewrite:
rewrite "^/images/avatars/(.+)-[\d]{12}.png" /images/avatars/$1.png;
rewrite "^/images/small-avatars/(.+)-[\d]{12}.png" /images/small-avatars/$1.png;
This meant if a file changed, its URL in the HTML changed, so the user's browser made a new request for the file. When the request reached Nginx, it got rewritten to the simple name of the file.
I would suggest using caching by ETags in this situation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_ETag. You can then use the hash as the etag. A request will still be submitted for each resource, but the browser will only download items that have changed since last download.
Read up on your web server / platform docs on how to use etags properly, most decent platforms have built-in support.
Most modern browsers check the if-modified-since header whenever a cacheable resource is in a HTTP request. However, not all browsers support the if-modified-since header.
There are three ways to "force" the browser to load a cached resource.
Option 1 Create a query string with a version#. src="script.js?ver=21". The downside is many proxy servers wont cache a resource with query strings. It also requires site-wide updating for changes.
Option 2 Create a naming system for your files src="script083010.js". However the downside to option 1 is that this as well requires site-wide updates whenever a file changes.
Option 3 Perhaps the most elegant solution, simply set up the caching headers: last-modified and expires in your server. The main downside to this is users may have to recache resources because they expired yet never changed. Additionally, the last-modified header does not work well when content is being served from multiple servers.
Here a few resources to check out: Yahoo Google AskApache.com
This is really only an issue if your web server sets a far-future "Expires" header (setting something like ExpiresDefault "access plus 10 years" in your Apache config). Otherwise, a browser will make a conditional GET, based on the modified time and/or the Etag. You can verify what is happening on your site by using a web proxy or an extension like Firebug (on the Net panel). Your question doesn't mention how your web server is configured, and what headers it is sending with static files.
If you're not setting a far-future Expires header, there's nothing special you need to do. Your web server will usually handle conditional GETs for static files based on last modified time just fine. If you are setting a far-future Expires header then yes, you need to add some sort of version to the file name like your question and the other answers have mentioned already.
I have also been thinking about this for a site I support where it would be a big job to change all references. I have two ideas:
1.
Set distant cache expiry headers and apply the changes you suggest for the most commonly downloaded files. For other files set the headers so they expire after a very short time - eg. 10 minutes. Then if you have a 10 minute downtime when updating the application, caches will be refreshed by the time users go to the site. General site navigation should be improved as the files will only need downloading every 10 minutes not every click.
2.
Each time a new version of the application is deployed to a different context that contains the version number. eg. www.site.com/app_2_6_0/ I'm not really sure about this as users bookmarks would be broken on each update.
I believe that a combination of solutions works best:
Setting cache expiry dates for each type of resource (image, page, etc) appropreatly for that resource, for example:
Your static "About", "Contact" etc pages probably arn't going to change more than a few time a year, so you could easily put a cache time of a month on these pages.
Images used in these pages could have eternal cache times, as you are more likey to replace an image then to change one.
Avatar images might have an expiry time of a day.
Some resources need modified dates in their names. For example avatars, generated images, and the like.
Some things should never be caches, new pages, user content etc. In these cases you should cache on the server, but never on the client side.
In the end you need to carfully consider each type of resource to determine what cache time to instruct the browser to use, and always be conservitive if you are unsure. You can increase the time later, but it's much more pain to uncache something.
You might want to check out the approach taken by the grails "uiperformance" plugin, which you can find here. It does a lot of the things you mention, but automates them (set expiry time to a long time, then increments version numbers when files change).
So if you're using grails, you get this stuff for free. If you are not - maybe you can borrow the techniques employed.
Also - borrowed form the ui-performance page, - read the following 14 rules.
ETags seemingly provide a solution for this...
As per http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/core.html#fileetag, we can set the browser to generate ETags on file-size (instead of time/inode/etc). This generation should be constant across multiple server deployments.
Just enable it in (/etc/apache2/apache2.conf)
FileETag Size
& you should be good!
That way, you can simply reference your images as <img src='/path/to/foo.png' /> and still use all the goodness of HTTP caching.