Hubbry Logo
Web cacheWeb cacheMain
Open search
Web cache
Community hub
Web cache
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Web cache
Web cache
Web cache
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A web cache (or HTTP cache) is a system for optimizing the World Wide Web. It is implemented both client-side and server-side. The caching of multimedia and other files can result in less overall delay when browsing the Web.[1][2]

Parts of the system

[edit]

Forward and reverse

[edit]

A forward cache is a cache outside the web server's network, e.g. in the client's web browser, in an ISP, or within a corporate network. A network-aware forward cache only caches heavily accessed items. A proxy server sitting between the client and web server can evaluate HTTP headers and choose whether to store web content.

A reverse cache sits in front of one or more web servers, accelerating requests from the Internet and reducing peak server load. This is usually a content delivery network (CDN) that retains copies of web content at various points throughout a network.

HTTP options

[edit]

The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) defines three basic mechanisms for controlling caches: freshness, validation, and invalidation. This is specified in the header of HTTP response messages from the server.

Freshness allows a response to be used without re-checking it on the origin server, and can be controlled by both the server and the client. For example, the Expires response header gives a date when the document becomes stale, and the Cache-Control: max-age directive tells the cache how many seconds the response is fresh for.

Validation can be used to check whether a cached response is still good after it becomes stale. For example, if the response has a Last-Modified header, a cache can make a conditional request using the If-Modified-Since header to see if it has changed. The ETag (entity tag) mechanism also allows for both strong and weak validation.

Invalidation is usually a side effect of another request that passes through the cache. For example, if a URL associated with a cached response subsequently gets a POST, PUT or DELETE request, the cached response will be invalidated. Many CDNs and manufacturers of network equipment have replaced this standard HTTP cache control with dynamic caching.

Legality

[edit]

In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act added rules to the United States Code (17 U.S.C. §: 512) that exempts system operators from copyright liability for the purposes of caching.

Server-side software

[edit]

This is a list of server-side web caching software.

Name Operating system Forward
mode 		Reverse
mode 		License
Windows Unix-like Other
Apache HTTP Server Yes OS X, Linux, Unix, FreeBSD, Solaris, Novell NetWare OS/2, TPF, OpenVMS, eComStation Yes
aiScaler Dynamic Cache Control No Linux No Proprietary
ApplianSys CACHEbox No Linux No Proprietary
Blue Coat ProxySG No No SGOS Yes Yes Proprietary
Nginx Yes Linux, BSD, OS X, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX Yes Yes Yes 2-clause BSD-like
Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway Yes No No Yes Yes Proprietary
Polipo Yes OS X, Linux, OpenWrt, FreeBSD ? Yes Yes MIT License
Squid Yes Linux ? Yes Yes GPL
Apache Traffic Server ? Linux ? Yes Yes Apache 2.0
Untangle No Linux No Yes Yes Proprietary
Varnish No Linux No Needs a VMOD Yes BSD
WinGate Yes No No Yes Yes Proprietary (Free for 8 users)
Nuster No Linux No Yes Yes GPL
McAfee Web Gateway No McAfee Linux Operating System No Yes Yes Proprietary

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Web cache

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A web cache, also known as an HTTP cache, is a local store of response messages along with the subsystem that controls their storage, retrieval, and deletion to satisfy subsequent equivalent requests without contacting the origin server. This mechanism is integral to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), enabling the temporary storage of web resources such as pages, images, and scripts to reduce response times and network bandwidth consumption. By reusing previously fetched content, web caching significantly enhances the efficiency of web browsing and content delivery across distributed systems. Web caches are categorized into two primary types: private caches, which are dedicated to a single user and typically implemented within user agents like web browsers to store resources locally on the user's device; and shared caches, which serve multiple users and are often part of network intermediaries such as proxy servers or content delivery networks (CDNs). Browser caches, for instance, save copies of frequently accessed files like stylesheets and media on the local hard drive, allowing quicker page loads on return visits. Proxy and CDN caches, on the other hand, position content closer to end-users by storing it in geographically distributed centers, thereby minimizing latency for global audiences. The operation of a web cache centers on the cache key, primarily composed of the request method and target URI, which determines whether a stored response can be reused. Caches evaluate responses for cacheability based on HTTP methods (e.g., GET requests are generally cacheable) and headers that indicate eligibility. To maintain accuracy, caches employ freshness mechanisms, where a response remains usable until its expiration time—set explicitly via the Expires header or the max-age directive in the Cache-Control header—or through heuristic estimation if no explicit lifetime is provided. If a response becomes stale, validation occurs via conditional requests using headers like If-Modified-Since or If-None-Match, allowing the cache to confirm with the origin server whether the content has changed without transferring the full resource. These processes ensure that caching preserves the semantics of HTTP while optimizing performance. Beyond performance gains, web caching reduces the load on origin servers by offloading repeated requests, lowers bandwidth costs, and improves for high-traffic websites. Directives in the Cache-Control header, such as no-cache, no-store, or public/private, provide fine-grained control over caching behavior, privacy, and sharing across caches. Additional headers like Age track the estimated time since a response was generated, and Vary specifies conditions under which responses differ, ensuring appropriate cache matching for varied client requests. Overall, web caching forms a foundational layer of the modern web , balancing speed, reliability, and resource efficiency.

Fundamentals

Definition and Purpose

A web cache is a local store of response messages and the subsystem that controls their storage, retrieval, and deletion to enable reuse for subsequent equivalent requests. It temporarily holds copies of web resources, such as documents, images, and scripts, allowing systems to serve these from local storage rather than fetching them anew from the origin server each time. This mechanism emerged in the early 1990s amid the rapid growth of the , initially through proxy servers used for firewall access that evolved to store documents for bandwidth reduction and latency improvement. The practice was first formalized in HTTP/1.0 in 1996, which introduced basic caching directives like the Expires header for managing resource staleness. It was significantly expanded in HTTP/1.1 in 1999, adding sophisticated controls such as Cache-Control headers to govern cache behavior more precisely across clients, proxies, and servers. The primary purposes of web caching include reducing latency for faster page loads, minimizing bandwidth usage to alleviate , and lowering server load for better scalability. These optimizations also yield cost savings for internet service providers (ISPs) and content providers by decreasing data transfer volumes and infrastructure demands. Key components encompass cache storage, which can utilize for speed or disk for capacity; retrieval logic to check for cached matches; and eviction policies, such as Least Recently Used (LRU), to manage space by discarding infrequently accessed items.

Benefits and Drawbacks

Web caching offers several key benefits that enhance overall and efficiency. One primary advantage is the reduction in network traffic, as caching can achieve hit rates of 40-50%, effectively decreasing bandwidth consumption and alleviating congestion. For instance, a well-designed cache with a 50% hit rate has been shown to be more effective than doubling an ISP's access link bandwidth. Additionally, caching lowers latency by serving resources from or nearby storage, with studies indicating potential reductions of up to 26% in access times for cached content compared to fetching from the origin server. This can translate to sub-second load times for frequently accessed pages versus multi-second fetches over the network. Caching also decreases server CPU usage by minimizing the number of requests that reach the origin server, thereby reducing computational load during peak traffic. In client-side implementations, it further improves by enabling offline access to cached resources in certain scenarios. Despite these advantages, web caching introduces notable drawbacks that must be managed carefully. A significant risk is serving stale content, where cached data becomes outdated due to updates on the origin server, potentially leading to user frustration from viewing incorrect or obsolete . This issue arises from inadequate updating mechanisms in proxies or clients. Caching also imposes increased storage requirements on devices, proxies, and servers, as maintaining copies of resources consumes disk or space that could otherwise be allocated elsewhere. Managing cache consistency adds complexity, requiring sophisticated policies to balance freshness and performance without overwhelming system resources. Furthermore, large-scale deployments involve higher initial setup costs, including hardware for storage and software for coordination across distributed systems. Benchmarks from the 2020s demonstrate caching's impact, with optimizations reducing page load times by an average of 30% in modern web environments, though improper validation can lead to error rates from stale content exceeding 10-20% in uncontrolled scenarios. A core trade-off in web caching lies in balancing hit rates—the percentage of requests served from cache—against miss rates, where misses trigger origin fetches and increase latency. High hit rates improve efficiency but may require larger storage or aggressive policies that risk staleness, while tolerating higher miss rates can prioritize freshness at the cost of performance. Effective strategies optimize this by monitoring ratios to avoid over-optimization that wastes resources without proportional gains.

Types of Web Caches

Client-Side Caches

Client-side caches encompass the storage systems embedded within user devices, particularly web browsers, that retain copies of web resources locally following their initial retrieval from a remote server. These caches, often implemented as memory or disk-based repositories, enable browsers to fulfill subsequent requests for the same resources—such as documents, images, CSS files, and —directly from the local device, thereby eliminating the need for repeated network transmissions and enhancing page load speeds. This mechanism operates as a forward cache, positioned between the client application and the network, and is designed to optimize individual user sessions by minimizing latency and bandwidth usage. Prominent implementations of client-side caches appear in major web browsers, including , Mozilla , and Apple , each employing a combination of in-memory caching for rapid access to ephemeral data and persistent for longer-term retention of frequently accessed items. In Chrome, for instance, the cache dynamically allocates space based on available disk capacity, allowing the browser to utilize up to 80% of total disk space overall, with individual origins permitted access to up to 60% of that allocation as of 2025. similarly scales its cache to up to 50% of free disk space, grouping quotas per effective plus one (eTLD+1) at around 2 GB, while limits total storage to approximately 1 GB on desktop and mobile, expanding in 200 MB increments upon user approval for installed progressive web apps (PWAs). These configurations ensure efficient without overly constraining performance. Browser caches exhibit behaviors tailored to improve usability and efficiency, automatically storing static assets like images and CSS files upon receipt if HTTP response headers permit caching, thereby serving them from local storage on reloads or navigations within the same session. Users exert control over these caches through browser settings, such as clearing all cached data or selectively disabling caching for development purposes via developer tools; for example, Chrome's Network panel includes a "Disable cache" option to bypass local storage during testing. Advanced client-side caching extends to service workers in PWAs, which enable developers to implement custom caching strategies—such as precaching essential assets during installation—for offline functionality and finer-grained control beyond standard HTTP directives. The duration of local storage for these resources is influenced by HTTP freshness directives, such as the max-age parameter in Cache-Control headers. A distinctive feature of client-side caches is their use of expiration for resources lacking explicit freshness information in headers like Cache-Control or Expires. In such cases, browsers estimate an expiration time based on the Last-Modified header, typically assigning a heuristic freshness lifetime of no more than 10% of the interval since that modification date, capped at a maximum of 24 hours to prevent indefinite staleness. This approach allows caches to store and reuse responses conservatively even without server-specified directives, promoting broader reusability while adhering to HTTP standards. Additionally, client-side caches integrate with local storage APIs, such as the Web Storage API for key-value persistence or the Cache API for service worker-managed responses, enabling hybrid strategies where HTTP-cached assets complement structured data storage for enhanced application state management.

Intermediary Caches

Intermediary caches, also known as proxy caches, are HTTP intermediaries positioned between clients and origin servers to store and reuse responses, thereby reducing latency and network load for multiple users. These caches operate as shared storage systems that can serve cached content to subsequent requests without forwarding them to the origin server, provided the response remains fresh according to caching directives. Unlike private caches, intermediary caches are explicitly deployed to handle for groups of users, such as in network environments, and they adhere to HTTP cache-control mechanisms to ensure compliance with and freshness rules. Forward proxies act on behalf of clients by intercepting their outbound requests and caching popular content to serve multiple users, which helps reduce upstream traffic to the or external networks. For instance, in corporate settings, forward proxies are often integrated into firewalls to provide controlled while caching frequently requested resources like software updates or common web pages, thereby conserving bandwidth for the organization. Internet service providers (ISPs) also deploy forward proxies to cache high-demand content across their user base, minimizing repeated fetches from origin servers. These proxies require client-side configuration, such as setting the proxy address in browsers or applications, and they transparently handle requests without altering the client's view of the origin server. Reverse proxies, sometimes referred to as gateways, are positioned in front of origin servers to cache responses and distribute incoming requests across backend servers, enhancing scalability for dynamic websites. By storing static or semi-static content closer to the edge, reverse proxies offload the origin servers, allowing them to focus on generating new content, and they often incorporate load balancing to prevent overload on any single server. A key feature of reverse proxies is their ability to apply optimizations like content compression before forwarding or serving responses, which further improves efficiency without client awareness. For example, software like configures reverse proxies with directives such as proxy_cache_path to define cache storage and proxy_cache to enable serving from cache, supporting features like stale content delivery during origin server downtime. The primary differences between forward and reverse proxies lie in their positioning and transparency: forward proxies operate on the client side, caching user requests to optimize outbound traffic and often enforcing policies like , while reverse proxies work on the server side to boost origin efficiency through inbound caching and additional services like compression. HTTP/1.1 introduced explicit support for intermediaries via headers such as Cache-Control: s-maxage, which allows shared caches to override client-specific directives for better in proxy environments. Organizational examples include corporate firewalls using Apache's mod_proxy for forward caching to filter and accelerate internal traffic, and web servers employing reverse proxies for high-traffic sites to handle load distribution.

Server-Side Caches

Server-side caches refer to caching mechanisms implemented directly on or closely adjacent to the origin , designed to store and reuse computed responses such as database query results or rendered page outputs, thereby reducing the computational load on the server for subsequent requests. Unlike more distributed caching layers, these systems focus on origin-level optimization by avoiding redundant processing of dynamic content generation. For instance, in a typical , a server-side cache might store the results of expensive database operations or pre-rendered fragments to serve identical or similar requests faster without re-executing the underlying logic. Common use cases for server-side caching include caching API responses within microservices architectures, where repeated calls to the same endpoint can retrieve data from cache instead of querying backend services each time. Full-page caching is particularly beneficial for static or semi-static websites, allowing the server to deliver pre-generated pages without reprocessing templates or assets on every hit. Integration with web frameworks like or Django further exemplifies this, where built-in caching modules enable developers to store session data, view outputs, or fragment results directly within the . Key mechanisms in server-side caching often rely on in-memory stores for low-latency access, such as , which serves as a for session data, user preferences, or intermediate computation results in high-throughput environments. For handling dynamic content, edge-side includes (ESI) via tools like Configuration Language (VCL) allow servers to assemble pages from cached components, combining static elements with personalized snippets on-the-fly. These approaches typically employ key-value stores or object caches that map request parameters to response payloads, with eviction policies like least recently used (LRU) to manage memory constraints. A primary challenge in server-side caching involves managing personalized content, which cannot be universally cached due to user-specific variations, requiring techniques like cache segmentation or conditional invalidation to balance performance gains with data freshness. This often leads to hybrid strategies where shared caches handle common elements, while individualized responses bypass caching altogether, potentially increasing server load during peak demands. Server-side caches may overlap with reverse proxies, such as when tools like are configured for both origin protection and local caching.

HTTP Caching Mechanisms

Resource Freshness

freshness in web caching refers to the duration for which a cached response remains valid and can be served directly without contacting the origin server for revalidation. The core concept is the freshness lifetime, which defines how long a stays usable in the cache before it expires and becomes stale. A cache determines freshness by comparing the current age of the response against this lifetime; if the age is less than the freshness lifetime, the is considered fresh and reusable. This mechanism, outlined in HTTP standards, enables efficient reuse of responses while balancing performance and data accuracy. HTTP provides explicit directives to control freshness through response headers. The Expires header specifies an absolute expiration date and time in HTTP-date format, after which the response becomes stale. For relative timing, the Cache-Control: max-age directive indicates the maximum age in seconds from the time the response was generated, overriding the Expires header if present. The directive signals that the response may be cached by shared caches, while private restricts it to private caches for a single user. Directives like no-cache require validation before reuse even if fresh, and no-store prohibits storage in any cache altogether. These controls allow origin servers to precisely manage cache behavior based on resource volatility. When explicit freshness information is absent—such as no Expires or max-age headers—caches may apply freshness to estimate . Heuristics typically use a of the resource's age, such as 10% of the interval since the Last-Modified , to infer a conservative freshness lifetime. This approach is optional and applies only to otherwise cacheable responses without explicit expiration times, helping maintain performance for static or infrequently changing resources while avoiding indefinite caching. The age of a cached response is calculated to assess freshness precisely. In its simplest form, the effective age approximates the time elapsed since the response was received:
effective age=current time−response time\text{effective age} = \text{current time} - \text{response time}
A response is fresh if this age is less than the freshness lifetime (e.g., max-age value). For more accurate derivation, as detailed in HTTP caching , the current age incorporates several components:
  • Apparent age: The difference between when the response was received and the Date header value, ensuring non-negative:
    apparent age=max⁡(0,response time−date value)\text{apparent age} = \max(0, \text{response time} - \text{date value})
  • Corrected initial age: Adjusts for any transmitted Age header and transit delays:
    corrected initial age=max⁡(apparent age,age value+response delay)\text{corrected initial age} = \max(\text{apparent age}, \text{age value} + \text{response delay})
    where response delay is the time from request to response.
  • Resident time: The duration the response has been in the cache:
    resident time=now−response time\text{resident time} = \text{now} - \text{response time}
The full current age is then:
current age=corrected initial age+resident time\text{current age} = \text{corrected initial age} + \text{resident time} This comprehensive calculation accounts for clock skews and network latencies, ensuring reliable freshness checks across distributed caches.

Cache Validation

Cache validation is a mechanism in HTTP that allows clients to determine whether a cached has changed on the origin server without always transferring the entire . This process is triggered when a cached response has expired based on its freshness lifetime, prompting the client to issue a conditional request to verify if the cached version remains valid. The primary goal is to minimize unnecessary data transfer while ensuring the client uses the most current representation available. The validation process relies on conditional requests, where the client includes specific headers in a GET or HEAD method to the server. The two main headers are If-Modified-Since, which specifies a date and time, and If-None-Match, which provides an entity tag (). Upon receiving such a request, the server compares the provided values against the current state: if the resource is unchanged since the specified time or matches the ETag, the server responds with a 304 Not Modified status code, including updated metadata headers but no response body, allowing the client to reuse the cached content. If the resource has been modified, the server returns a 200 OK status with the full new representation. This approach ensures efficient reuse of cached data while confirming its accuracy. Key headers supporting validation include Last-Modified and . The Last-Modified header conveys the date and time at which the origin server believes the was last modified, serving as a timestamp-based suitable for resources with reliable modification times. The header, in contrast, provides a unique opaque identifier—often a hash or of the content—that acts as a more precise , enabling byte-for-byte comparisons without relying on timestamps. Servers generate ETags dynamically for each response, and clients store them alongside the cached for subsequent validations. ETags support both strong and weak validation to balance precision and practicality. Strong ETags require an exact match of the resource representation, ensuring byte-for-byte equivalence and providing the highest level of consistency; they are used by default in conditional requests unless specified otherwise. Weak ETags, prefixed with "W/" (e.g., "W/"abc123""), indicate semantic equivalence rather than exact identity, allowing minor, unobservable changes such as whitespace adjustments or compression variations without invalidating the cache. Weak validators are only applicable in certain conditional contexts, like If-None-Match for GET requests, and cannot be used for strong consistency guarantees. This distinction enables servers to optimize for scenarios where perfect fidelity is not required, reducing unnecessary invalidations. By avoiding full resource transfers when validation succeeds, this mechanism significantly improves , particularly for frequently accessed but infrequently changing content. This results in substantial bandwidth reductions, especially in high-latency networks or for large like images and scripts.

Cache Invalidation

Cache invalidation refers to the process of proactively or reactively removing or marking outdated in web caches to ensure users receive current content. One common method is time-based eviction using Time-to-Live (TTL) values, where cached items are automatically expired after a predefined duration set via HTTP headers like Expires or Cache-Control: max-age. This approach simplifies management by avoiding manual intervention but may lead to serving slightly stale data if the TTL is too long. Explicit invalidation often employs requests in proxy caches, allowing origin servers or administrators to directly remove specific cached objects. In systems like Varnish Cache, a HTTP method targets entries matching a hash of the Host header and , including query parameters, provided the request originates from authorized IPs defined in lists. This technique enables precise control, such as purging variants of dynamic content, and is commonly integrated into reverse proxies for immediate updates. Event-driven invalidation removes cached items in response to specific triggers, such as (CMS) updates or database changes, ensuring freshness without blanket evictions. For instance, when a resource is modified, an event notifies connected caches to invalidate related entries, reducing latency in dynamic environments like sites. A key challenge in cache invalidation is the , where multiple clients simultaneously request and revalidate an expired item, overwhelming the origin server with redundant queries. This can degrade performance, especially under high load, as seen in parallel systems where expiration aligns with peak traffic. To mitigate this, probabilistic invalidation introduces randomness in expiration times; for example, the XFetch algorithm uses an to stagger early expirations, limiting stampede size to a constant factor while bounding the freshness gap. Experiments demonstrate stampede sizes under 10 requests even with recomputation times of 10 seconds. In core HTTP, no standardized explicit invalidation mechanism exists, relying instead on extensions like proposed APIs for gateway caches. As of November 2025, ongoing IETF work such as draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups explores cache groups for coordinated invalidation events. The Cache-Control: must-revalidate directive addresses this indirectly by requiring caches to validate stale responses with the origin before reuse, returning a 504 Gateway Timeout if validation fails, which is essential for scenarios demanding accuracy like financial applications. Unsafe methods such as PUT or with successful responses (2xx or 3xx) trigger automatic invalidation of the effective Request URI and related Location headers in compliant caches. Advanced techniques in content delivery networks (CDNs) include tag-based invalidation, where resources are annotated with metadata tags via the Cache-Tag header for grouped purging. In , tags (up to 1,024 characters each, no spaces) link to cached assets, allowing or purges that set the status to MISS and invalidate variants globally within 150 milliseconds. Similarly, Cloud CDN supports up to 50 tags per object (120 bytes each), enabling OR-based invalidation requests combined with URL matchers for targeted removal without affecting untagged content. When invalidation misses certain entries, cache validation serves as a fallback to confirm freshness.

Implementations

Browser Implementations

Modern web browsers implement client-side caching to store web resources locally, reducing load times and bandwidth usage while adhering to privacy standards. Chromium-based browsers like and employ partitioned storage mechanisms to isolate caches per site, preventing cross-site tracking through third-party contexts. This partitioning applies to the Cache , which allows developers to manage service worker caches explicitly, with storage allocated in separate quotas per top-level site and origin. As of 2025, these browsers enhance privacy by limiting storage per origin to up to 60% of the total disk size, though actual occurs based on usage patterns to avoid excessive consumption. Mozilla utilizes a combination of disk and memory caches for resource storage, where the memory cache holds frequently accessed items during a session for rapid retrieval, while the disk cache persists data across sessions on the local filesystem. also incorporates a back-forward cache (bfcache) that snapshots entire page states in memory for instantaneous during back and forward actions, preserving execution context and DOM state without refetching resources. Additionally, supports speculative preloading, which anticipates user by fetching resources like DNS records and scripts in the background based on heuristics, improving perceived performance without disrupting the main thread. Apple's integrates cache management with its Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP) framework, which partitions web caches for third-party domains according to the top privately-controlled domain (TLD+1), ensuring isolation between sites like subdomains under the same parent to curb tracking while permitting legitimate cross-site features such as logins. On devices, Safari enforces storage limits tied to device capacity, allowing up to around 60% of the total disk space per origin for the Cache Storage API, adjusted based on device capacity and to conserve battery and , with aggressive of unused after periods of inactivity. This approach aligns cache behavior with overall system resources, purging for non-interacted sites after 7 days without user engagement for script-writable storage, or longer periods of inactivity for other based on user engagement. Across major browsers, developer tools provide interfaces for inspecting and managing caches; for instance, Chrome DevTools allows viewing cache hits in the Network panel, disabling the cache for testing, and manually clearing it via right-click options in the requests table. and offer analogous tools in their inspectors for monitoring cache usage and eviction. All contemporary browsers comply with and protocols, leveraging to serve multiple cached resources efficiently over single connections, minimizing latency in cache validation and retrieval compared to HTTP/1.1's sequential nature.

Proxy and Server Software

Squid is an open-source caching that functions as both a forward and , widely used for intermediary caching to reduce bandwidth and improve response times by storing frequently requested . It supports HTTP/1.1 protocols for efficient request handling and includes features like the Internet Cache Protocol (ICP) for cache peering among multiple proxies, enabling collaborative content sharing in distributed environments. As of October 2025, the latest stable release is version 7.3, released on October 28, 2025, which addresses security vulnerabilities and enhances performance for modern . Varnish Cache serves as a high-performance designed specifically for accelerating dynamic delivery through in-memory caching, positioning it as an intermediary layer between clients and origin servers. Its key feature is the Varnish Configuration Language (VCL), a domain-specific scripting tool that allows administrators to customize caching logic, request , and response modifications without recompiling the software. Varnish is notably deployed by high-traffic sites like to handle massive loads efficiently, reducing origin server strain by caching rendered pages and API responses. Nginx functions as a modular and with built-in caching capabilities via its proxy_cache module, which enables intermediary caching of proxied content to offload backend servers and speed up delivery. This module integrates seamlessly with Nginx's load balancing features, allowing cached responses to be distributed across groups using algorithms like round-robin or least connections for . In 2025, Nginx's stable releases exceed version 1.26, supporting advanced and protocols alongside caching for both static and dynamic resources. Apache Traffic Server (ATS) is a scalable open-source proxy server optimized for large-scale intermediary and server-side caching, particularly in environments with high request volumes, where it acts as a forward or reverse proxy to cache HTTP content and reduce latency. Originally developed by Inktomi and later adopted internally by Yahoo for handling billions of daily requests, ATS was open-sourced and donated to the Apache Software Foundation in 2009, evolving into a robust tool for edge caching and traffic management. It excels in distributed setups, supporting plugins for custom extensions and focusing on throughput optimization for enterprise deployments. While most prominent web caching proxy software is open-source, proprietary solutions like Akamai's edge platform provide managed intermediary caching through specialized server software deployed on global edge networks, emphasizing automated optimization and for commercial content delivery. The following table compares key features of the primary open-source implementations:
SoftwareProtocols SupportedOS CompatibilityLicensing
HTTP/1.1, , FTP, Unix, WindowsGPL-2.0
Varnish CacheHTTP/1.1, , , macOSBSD-2-Clause
HTTP/1.1, , , Unix, WindowsBSD-2-Clause
Apache Traffic ServerHTTP/1.1, , UnixApache-2.0

Content Delivery Networks

Content delivery networks (CDNs) are distributed systems comprising geographically dispersed edge servers that cache closer to end-users, thereby minimizing latency and enhancing delivery speeds for static and dynamic resources. This architecture originated with the launch of the first commercial CDN by in 1998, addressing the growing demands of following the public web's expansion. By replicating content across global points of presence (PoPs), CDNs serve as specialized reverse caching mechanisms that offload traffic from origin servers, improving for high-volume sites. Prominent CDN providers in 2025 include , which features Argo Smart Routing for optimizing traffic paths around ; (AWS) CloudFront, integrated with broader cloud ecosystems; and , known for its capabilities. The global CDN market has grown significantly, reaching over $30 billion in 2025, driven by surging demand for video streaming, , and real-time applications. In terms of caching operations, CDNs utilize geo-replication to store copies of content on edge servers worldwide, ensuring low-latency access based on user location. Dynamic invalidation mechanisms, often via APIs, allow content owners to outdated cache entries efficiently, maintaining freshness without manual intervention across the network. For video streaming, CDNs support adaptive bitrate (ABR) techniques, where multiple quality versions of content are cached and dynamically selected to match varying network conditions, optimizing playback without buffering. CDNs integrate with origin servers through pull models, where edge servers fetch content on-demand upon a cache , or push models, where updates are proactively uploaded to edges for immediate availability. Many modern CDNs, including those from Akamai and Cloud, support protocols to accelerate cache fills and content delivery by reducing connection setup times and handling multiplexed more efficiently. Web caching involves the temporary reproduction of copyrighted material, which can implicate the exclusive reproduction rights of copyright holders under applicable laws. In the United States, the of 1998 provides a safe harbor under Section 512(b) that limits liability for service providers engaging in system caching, provided the caching is automated, does not modify the content, is limited to improving access, and the provider complies with removal requests upon notification of infringement. Internationally, the European Union's Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the establishes an exemption under Article 5(1) for temporary acts of reproduction, such as caching, that are transient or incidental, enable efficient transmission in a network, and have no independent economic significance. This aligns with broader standards influenced by the (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, which recognize temporary digital reproductions like caching as permissible if they facilitate lawful use without conflicting with normal exploitation of the work. Key judicial precedents have shaped these frameworks; for instance, in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that automated caching by search engines, including to reduced-size images, constituted and did not infringe , as it served transformative purposes without harming the market for originals. As of 2025, ongoing debates center on whether caching copyrighted data for training models qualifies for similar exemptions, with the U.S. Copyright Office's report on generative AI training highlighting potential infringement absent defenses, amid lawsuits against AI developers for unauthorized data reproduction. Content delivery networks (CDNs), as server-side caching implementations, must adhere to these liability limitations to avoid infringement claims.

Privacy and Security Issues

Web caching introduces significant privacy risks, particularly when sensitive user data such as or personal images is stored and potentially exposed through shared proxy servers. In shared proxy environments, cached responses containing or personalized content can be accessed by multiple users, leading to unauthorized disclosure of private information if proper isolation is not enforced. For instance, proxies that fail to properly handle the Vary header may serve personalized responses to unintended recipients, amplifying the risk of data leakage in multi-user setups. Cache timing attacks further exacerbate privacy concerns by enabling browser fingerprinting, where attackers infer user browsing history or activity through variations in cache access times. These side-channel attacks exploit the timing differences in CPU cache operations to detect whether specific resources have been loaded previously, allowing cross-origin tracking without direct access to cached content. Research demonstrates that such techniques can reliably identify visited websites with high accuracy, even across browser sessions, by monitoring cache occupancy states. On the security front, web cache poisoning represents a critical where attackers inject malicious responses into the cache, which are then served to subsequent users as legitimate content. This occurs when servers or caches mishandle parameters in requests, such as unkeyed inputs in URLs or headers, allowing harmful payloads like code to be stored and distributed. Attackers can also employ cache busters—techniques that append unique identifiers to requests to evade caching mechanisms—either to bypass protections during exploitation or to ensure poisoned entries are not inadvertently cleared. Mitigations include restricting caching to -only responses, as encrypted connections prevent intermediaries from inspecting or modifying content, thereby reducing poisoning risks in transit. Regulatory frameworks address these issues by mandating safeguards for cached . The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), effective since 2018, enforces data minimization principles, requiring that only necessary be collected and stored in caches to limit exposure risks. This applies to web caching by promoting encrypted storage and short retention periods for sensitive items like cookies, as seen in guidance for cache implementations to comply with privacy-by-design. In the United States, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) influences caching practices by granting consumers rights to opt out of data sales and requiring transparency in how , including cached tracking elements, is processed. As a to caching-related security threats, browser vendors have implemented isolation techniques, such as Chrome's Site Isolation feature, which assigns dedicated processes to individual sites to prevent cross-origin attacks that could exploit shared cache states. This process-based separation enhances protection against timing-based fingerprinting and potential poisoning vectors within the browser environment.

References

  1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9111
  2. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Caching
  3. https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/cdn/what-is-caching/
  4. https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc7234.html
  5. https://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~cs3242/reading/caching.pdf
  6. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1945
  7. https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13.html
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/web-caching
  9. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/505696.505701
  10. https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bitstreams/a42fd593-44ad-4035-a1b6-136fb5ec7789/download
  11. https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~tmk/publications/ideal/
  12. http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~varghese/PAPERS/webinfocom.pdf
  13. https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~arvind/papers/pload-atc16.pdf
  14. https://jia-wang.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/web-survey-techrep.pdf
  15. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/best-practices/caching
  16. https://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2024/papers/hotnets24-124.pdf
  17. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/atc22-yan-gang.pdf
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344550665_An_Intelligent_Web_Caching_System_for_Improving_the_Performance_of_a_Web-Based_Information_Retrieval_System
  19. https://www.pdl.cmu.edu/PDL-FTP/associated/2018.nsdi.lhd.pdf
  20. https://redis.io/blog/why-your-cache-hit-ratio-strategy-needs-an-update/
  21. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Guides/Caching
  22. https://http.dev/caching
  23. https://web.dev/articles/storage-for-the-web
  24. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/devtools/network/reference/#caching
  25. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web_apps/Guides/Caching
  26. https://paulcalvano.com/2018-03-14-http-heuristic-caching-missing-cache-control-and-expires-headers-explained/
  27. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Storage_API
  28. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9111#section-1.3
  29. https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_proxy.html#forwardproxies
  30. https://docs.trafficserver.apache.org/en/latest/getting-started/index.en.html
  31. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9110#section-3.7
  32. https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/cdn/glossary/reverse-proxy/
  33. https://www.nginx.com/blog/nginx-caching-guide/
  34. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9111#section-3.5
  35. https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_proxy.html
  36. https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc9111.html
  37. https://www.varnish-software.com/developers/tutorials/cache-invalidation/
  38. https://crystallize.com/blog/event-driven-http-caching
  39. https://blog.cloudflare.com/sometimes-i-cache/
  40. https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~avattani/papers/cache_stampede.pdf
  41. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nottingham-http-invalidation-01
  42. https://developers.cloudflare.com/cache/how-to/purge-cache/purge-by-tags/
  43. https://privacysandbox.google.com/cookies/storage-partitioning
  44. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Storage_API/Storage_quotas_and_eviction_criteria
  45. https://www.jonoalderson.com/performance/http-caching/
  46. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/bfcache
  47. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Performance/Guides/Speculative_loading
  48. https://webkit.org/blog/7675/intelligent-tracking-prevention/
  49. https://www.tigren.com/blog/progressive-web-app-limitations/
  50. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/devtools/network/reference
  51. https://www.debugbear.com/blog/http3-vs-http2-performance
  52. https://github.com/squid-cache/squid/releases
  53. https://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/HTTP11
  54. https://www.runzero.com/blog/squid/
  55. https://varnish-cache.org/intro/
  56. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Varnish_caching
  57. https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Varnish
  58. https://docs.nginx.com/nginx/admin-guide/content-cache/content-caching/
  59. https://docs.nginx.com/nginx/admin-guide/load-balancer/http-load-balancer/
  60. https://nginx.org/
  61. https://trafficserver.apache.org/
  62. https://www.infoq.com/news/2009/11/Yahoo-Traffic-Server-Apache/
  63. https://www.techtarget.com/searchnetworking/definition/CDN-content-delivery-network
  64. https://www.broadbandsearch.net/definitions/content-delivery-network
  65. https://www.akamai.com/glossary/what-is-a-cdn
  66. https://www.cloudflare.com/application-services/products/argo-smart-routing/
  67. https://www.techradar.com/news/best-cdn-providers
  68. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/02/10/3023657/28124/en/Content-Delivery-Network-Market-Analysis-and-Competitive-Landscape-Report-2025-with-Akamai-Technologies-Microsoft-Google-AT-T-Amazon-Web-Services-and-More.html
  69. https://www.designgurus.io/answers/detail/how-do-cdn-edge-servers-and-geo-replication-reduce-latency-in-distributed-systems
  70. https://www.fastpix.io/blog/cdn-cache-purge-in-video-streaming
  71. https://www.cachefly.com/news/enhancing-video-quality-with-adaptive-bitrate-streaming/
  72. https://www.cachefly.com/news/exploring-the-landscape-an-in-depth-guide-to-different-types-of-content-delivery-networks/
  73. https://techdocs.akamai.com/property-mgr/docs/http3-support
  74. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/cloud-cdn-and-load-balancing-support-http3
  75. https://www.copyright.gov/512/
  76. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
  77. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/wct_wppt_imp/wct_wppt_imp_1.doc
  78. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/12/03/0655405.pdf
  79. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf
  80. https://web.dev/articles/http-cache-security
  81. https://www.upguard.com/blog/proxy-server
  82. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9334393/proxy-cacheing-what-about-cookies
  83. https://inria.hal.science/hal-01345099v1/document
  84. http://www.princeton.edu/~pmittal/publications/cache-fingerprinting-usenix19.pdf
  85. https://portswigger.net/web-security/web-cache-poisoning
  86. https://www.invicti.com/blog/web-security/web-cache-poisoning-introduction
  87. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/
  88. https://info.varnish-software.com/blog/cache-encryption-gdpr
  89. https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa
  90. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/site-isolation
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.