On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Ryan Zezeski <rzeze...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Mark Phillips <m...@basho.com> wrote: >> >> 8) Q --- In regards to riak_kv_cache_backend, is the max_ttl a hard >> cap? i.e., if there is an access at second 3599 will the object still >> be evicted right afterwards or will it be extended for another 600s? >> (from progski via #riak) >> >> A --- TTL is relative to last access so accessing at 3599s would >> extend the lease. >> > > Hi, this is progski here. Thanks for taking the time to answer this but I > think you're incorrect. After running a quick test I've witnessed the > following behavior.
Yes, your analysis is correct. I'm the guilty/misleading party here -- my quick read of the code this morning was off-by-one (or so!). Sorry for the confusion. :) D. _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
