Search results

Finally and to extend your knowledge about economically cache warmup, read the following documentations. There is definitly no need to warmup the cache for Google bot and/or to define cache rules for Google or any other bot to get better Pagespeed score. It may irritate, but I have disabled...

What do you expect? Each of your modifications can have the potential for interactions with other functions. Sorry to say that, but you have maneuvered yourself in a street with dead end.

No, I don't think so. In my mind the most important and the very first way would be to isolate the reason and to find out, if the issue only happens with crawler or independently from it. For this it would be very very very important to use same UA for crawler and for manual request with...

Really? If so, something must be wrong with defined cache parameters or/and cache varies. Anyway, I am out from here and can't help anymore. To solve your issue someone must have access to your installation.

Okay, my previously question again. Can you find out any difference with cache lifetime if URLs have only 1 or multiple GET parameters?

And this issue only happens with internal cache crawler?

Different cache for different URLs is not what my question was intended for. You say you have issues with cache lifetime and the cache lifetime is different as you defined it, right?

YES!

1 GET Parameter: &product_id=41 Multiple GET Parameter: &path=20_27&product_id=41

Reducing the number of URLs is a general advice and isn't meant for to solve your problem. Can you find out any different behaviour if a URL has more than 1 GET or only 1 parameter?

Once again, if you send redirection header 302 browser will cache it, not LiteSpeed. LiteSpeed neither caches it, nor can control browser cache behaviour if this header is sent. It is not possible to send 302 header and to tell browser that he shouldn't cache it. It is inherent to the system...

Can you find out any different behaviour if a URL has more than 1 GET parameter?

Did your change your hosting to a different provider?

@julianne4987 I don't know if you already solved your problem, but as @Pong already described there is no one and only solution for your isssue. It needs a custom way to solve it. There are a huge methods to try to dectect devices. Not every one is perfect, but almost every one works different...

Which method or crawler do you use to warmup the cache? Btw. if you have additional questions, write a new post and don't modify a previous post. It will not be noticed.

I don't tell you fairy tales.... Believe in what ever you want to believe in.... ;)

Why do you try find a complicated solution, if there is a simple solution. Use rewrite rules and disable cache if a specific GET parameter is used. No need for ESI.

Google doesn't measure the speed of your page with a bot. It uses client side results from Chrome browser and such data are used to calculate the speed. Really? Yes, really! ;)

Yes really! ;) If no one requests a never wanted product in your shop, why should the cache of this URL be warmed up?! This is waste of resources. It is also not necessary to warmup the cache for bots. You don't get any advantage.

First of all: It is not really economically to try to warmup the cache for all URLs. Reduce the number to the most wanted URLs if you don't have a method (crawler) to request URLs parallel and not one by one like you do it with the current method.