no-cache vs no-store [英] no-cache vs no-store

问题描述

大家好，

这两个缓存控制头之间的区别是什么。


no-cache和no-store。


我已经阅读了w3.org的解释。


所以我说我只使用no-cache ....我的理解是

没有任何内容被缓存，没有任何东西被写入磁盘。


但是当我们使用no-store时会发生什么......我想......没有写的内容

到磁盘，但它可以被缓存。

现在我的问题是这个缓存位于哪里......它只在内存中

？....如果它被写入磁盘，它是如何记录的，它什么时候得到

清理。


无缓存比没有存储更安全..why ？


我们可以假设使用IIS和IE6.0 SP2。

谢谢

Siddharth

推荐答案

非缓存和非存储并不意味着不缓存，这意味着不要为后续请求重用
。


re成员浏览器不是唯一的缓存。代理服务器缓存，Web服务器

缓存，浏览器缓存，isps添加缓存路由器。在代理服务器的情况下，

它将获取页面，但它需要将其保存在缓存中，直到

客户端已读取所有内容（作为客户端网络）可能会慢很多，然后

代理）。如果代理同时处理100个请求，它可能没有足够的内存将这些页面存储在内存中，并且可能无法兑现

指令无论如何。

请参阅有关构建缓存管理器的w3c规范。阅读第14.9.2节

http ：//www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13.html

- 布鲁斯（sqlwork.com）


< si ************ @ hotmail.com>在消息中写道

新闻：11 ********************** @ h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com ...

non-cache and no-store do not really mean not to cache, it means do not
reuse for a subsequent request.

remember the browser is not the only cache. proxy servers cache, web servers
cache, browsers cache, isps add caching routers. in the proxy server case,
it will fetch the page, but it need to maintain it in the cache until the
client has read all of it (as the client network may be a lot slower then
the proxy). if the proxy is handling 100''s of requests at the same time, it
may not have enough memory to store these pages in memory and may not honor
the directive anyway.
see this w3c spec on building cache managers. read section 14.9.2

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13.html

-- bruce (sqlwork.com)

<si************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

大家好，
这两个缓存控制头之间有什么区别。

no-cache和no-store。

我看过w3.org解释。

所以我要说我只使用no-cache ....我的理解是
没有任何内容被缓存，也没有任何内容被写入磁盘。
<但是当我们使用no-store时会发生什么...我认为......没有任何内容写入磁盘但它可以被缓存。
现在我的问题是这个缓存位于哪里......它只在内存中？如果它被写入磁盘，那么它是如何记录的，以及何时清理它。

无缓存更安全比没有商店..我们可以假设使用IIS和IE6.0 SP2。
谢谢
Siddharth

Hi All,
what is the diference between these two cache control header.

no-cache and no-store.

I have read the w3.org explanation.

So lets say I am using only no-cache ....my understanding is that
nothing is cached and nothing is writen to disk.

but what happens when we use no-store....i think..nothing is written
to disk but it could be cached.
Now my question where is this cache located...is it only in memory
?....if it is written to disk how log is it there and when does it gets
cleaned.

Is no-cache more secure than no-store ..why?

We can assume IIS and IE6.0 SP2 being used.
Thanks
Siddharth

Bruce，

我知道缓存可能发生在各个地方。但是如果你设置

在ISS-网站级别的缓存标题应该适用于所有

即IE，代理等等。


感谢您的回复，但我试着了解非缓存和非商店之间的差价是什么？


如果你看一下在无商店关于W3网站的解释...这就是

它说


" no-store指令的目的是防止无意中的

发布或保留敏感信息（例如，备份

磁带）。


所以我的理解是它不会允许任何pesisted

IE，代理等...我IE的情况我认为它将是TempInternet文件夹

等

换句话说就是没有商店正在做的事情来防止无意释放或保留敏感信息？

no-cahe和no-store之间有什么区别？


谢谢

Siddharth

Bruce,
I understand that caching can happen at various places. But if you set
the caching headers at ISS- Website level than it should apply to all
i.e IE,proxies etc..

thanks for your response but I was tryng to understand what is the
difference between non-cache and no-store?

Also if you look at "no-store" explanation on W3 site...this is what
it says

"The purpose of the no-store directive is to prevent the inadvertent
release or retention of sensitive information (for example, on backup
tapes). "

so my inderstanding was that it will not allow anything pesisted to
IE,proxy etc...I IE case i thought it will be TempInternet files folder
etc.
In other words is it that no-store is doing to achieve prevention of
the inadvertent release or retention of sensitive information?
what is the difference between no-cahe and no-store ?

Thanks
Siddharth

我发现如果你不想使用firefox，那么no-store就是使用什么？
显示原始下载的内容。例如，我写了一个应用程序让

人改变网站区域中的盒装位置。像Google一样

个人或Windows Live。现在，如果用户移动了一些东西，那将是通过AJAX保存的，并且发生回到页面的缓存/存储版本

没有任何变化会显示，因为请求没有发送给服务器
。所以我总是使用：


Response.Cache.SetCacheability（HttpCacheability.Se rverAndNoCache）;

Response.Cache.SetAllowResponseInBrowserHistory（fa lse）;

Response.Cache.SetNoStore（）;


如果我绝对希望客户端必须去服务器获取

请求，而不是点击其中一个缓存的位置。


" si ************ @ hotmail.com"写道：

I have found that no-store is what to use if you do not want firefox to
display the original downloaded content. For example I wrote an app that let
people change where boxed in areas of a web site were located. Like Google
Personal or Windows Live. Now if a user moved things around, which would be
saved through AJAX and happened back to a cached/stored version of the page
none of there changes would show up because the request is not being made to
the server. So I always use:

Response.Cache.SetCacheability(HttpCacheability.Se rverAndNoCache);
Response.Cache.SetAllowResponseInBrowserHistory(fa lse);
Response.Cache.SetNoStore();

If I absouletely want the client to have to go to the server for the
request, instead of hitting one of the cached locations.

"si************@hotmail.com" wrote:

大家好，
这两个缓存控制头之间有什么不同。

no-cache和no-store。

我已经阅读了w3.org的解释。

所以我可以说我只使用no-cache ....我的理解是
什么都没有缓存而且什么都没有写入磁盘。

但是当我们使用no-store时会发生什么......我认为......没有任何内容写入磁盘但它可以被缓存。
现在我的问题这个缓存位于哪里......它只在内存中吗？....如果它被写入磁盘，那么日志是什么以及何时清理它。

无缓存比没有存储更安全..为什么？

我们可以假设使用IIS和IE6.0 SP2。
谢谢
Siddharth

Hi All,
what is the diference between these two cache control header.

no-cache and no-store.

I have read the w3.org explanation.

So lets say I am using only no-cache ....my understanding is that
nothing is cached and nothing is writen to disk.

but what happens when we use no-store....i think..nothing is written
to disk but it could be cached.
Now my question where is this cache located...is it only in memory
?....if it is written to disk how log is it there and when does it gets
cleaned.

Is no-cache more secure than no-store ..why?

We can assume IIS and IE6.0 SP2 being used.
Thanks
Siddharth

这篇关于no-cache vs no-store的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！