Bug #1585

mod_compress will append etags header even if etags is disabled

Added by georgexsh over 6 years ago. Updated about 4 years ago.

Status:ReopenedStart date:
Priority:HighDue date:
Assignee:-% Done:

0%

Category:mod_compress
Target version:-
Missing in 1.5.x:

Description

When use static-file.etags="disable" to disable etags header in config file, response that encoded by mod_compress still append etags header.


385            buffer_append_string_buffer(p->ofn, sce->etag);

It is seems that mod_compress will not check the options of etags.

mod_compress.c.diff Magnifier - I add some hacks to deal with "static-file.etags" option. (600 Bytes) georgexsh, 2008-03-09 09:21

mod_compress_1.4.18_patched.c Magnifier - patched file (18 KB) georgexsh, 2008-03-09 09:23

History

#1 Updated by georgexsh over 6 years ago


672   etag_mutate(con->physical.etag, sce->etag);
673   response_header_overwrite(srv, con, CONST_STR_LEN("ETag"), CONST_BUF_LEN(con->physical.etag));

#2 Updated by stbuehler over 6 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Fixed
  • Resolution set to invalid

Why would you disable etags if you need mod_compress? And i don't like hacks :)

And why should static-file.etags influence mod_compress?

#3 Updated by stbuehler about 6 years ago

  • Status changed from Fixed to Invalid

#4 Updated by petitchevalroux almost 6 years ago

@stbuehler he wants to disable etags for the same reason the static-file.etags has been created (http://redmine.lighttpd.net/issues/show/1209).

To resume : In multiple server configuration Etags are not the same for all the webserver. (May be they are with le mod_compress etags generation algorithm, I do not know ...)

"And why should static-file.etags influence mod_compress?"

May be there should be a compress.etags disable options.

Tell me if i am wrong, I just want to have more explanation about why disabling etags in mod_compress looks so crazy ;)

#5 Updated by georgexsh over 5 years ago

stbuehler wrote:

Why would you disable etags if you need mod_compress? And i don't like hacks :)

And why should static-file.etags influence mod_compress?

@stbuehler why you think disable etags for mod_compress is a bad idea? could you explain more on it
Although let static-file.etags disable etags for mod_compres is not as nice as add a new config options to control it, but I don't think disabling etags in mod_compress sounds wired.

#6 Updated by kees over 5 years ago

stbuehler wrote:

Why would you disable etags if you need mod_compress? And i don't like hacks :)

And why should static-file.etags influence mod_compress?

To the first; to save bandwidth; In a multiple server farm etags don't do much good, and they are kinda redundant if you use mtime/size only. So to save bandwidth, i disable them. See also http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#etags

We also use mod_compress to lower our bandwidth even more, however i'm getting a bit sick of having to comment out the ETag line and recompile lighty with that single change for every upgrade i do.

So it should either be influenced by static-file.etags, or another setting, which would do exactly the same, but takes up more configuration file space. I for one cannot believe it if someone would want to disable static-file etags, but wouldn't mind if mod_compress overrules their 'no-etag' decision and adds ETags without bothering to look at any relevant config options.

#7 Updated by peto over 5 years ago

Why did you close this bug and ask for feedback at the same time? That's basically spitting in the reporter's face. "I'm pretending to ask for more info, but I don't actually care so I'm closing the bug now."

This is definitely a bug. It makes no sense that you can disable it for static files, but not for compressed files. The ETag setting should be a global setting (etag.enable) which affects everywhere lighttpd adds the header.

#8 Updated by anto over 5 years ago

I also think that this is definitely a bug as the logic is quite simple. The output of mod_compress is a static file, so why can it not accept static-file.etags="disable"?

I also don't really understand why its status is set to "invalid", because I think the propose fix seems to be good enough. Perhaps because the word "hacks" is being used instead of "fix" :)

To work around this problem, I applied the "real hacks" using mod_magnet with LUA script, and also forced my backend to gzip the files.

#9 Updated by rodivi almost 5 years ago

I have the same problem here. We need to deactivate eTags on http headers but using zip compression for static files. It would be great if this bug (thats - a - bug) get resolved.

#10 Updated by davidhope about 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Invalid to Reopened

Is there any information we can provide to progress this bug? A few people have responded since it was initially marked as invalid. If it's not valid, or is a 'Wont Fix' can someone explain why?

Thanks

Also available in: Atom