Nils Goroll

I edited the initial description to suggest the vcl context ` VCL_MET_DECIDE`. The previously suggested name was a particularly bad choice, because it suggested a relation to other ideas around...

@gquintard that could live in a vmod. FWIW, `cron` could, too...

If anyone stumbles over this before #4400 gets in: The workaround should be to add ```vcl sub vcl_refresh_valid { if (!obj_stale.is_valid) { unset bereq.http.if-modified-since; unset bereq.http.if-none-match; return (retry); } }...

@kaiburjack have you tried any of the [workarounds](https://github.com/varnishcache/varnish-cache/issues/4399#issuecomment-3334628203) or did you just roll back?

closing because #4400 has been merged (edit: no, this ticket is about this situation being hard to debug)

It seems like you are trying to deliver 2 files of 3gb size each from a 5gb file storage? The file storage does not support this scenario, because it always...

@idl0r yes, the older object should get nuked, but that can only happen once it is not used any more. This is what I was referring to with "it seems...

I tried to reproduce this and failed. * apache listening on 172.0.0.1 and delivering two 3g files (hardlinked) ``` $ curl -I http://localhost:80/3g HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 27 Jan...

To summarize, as [walid has explained](https://github.com/varnishcache/varnish-cache/issues/4256#issuecomment-3523138180), when we re-validate an object (process a `304` response to a conditional `GET`), we create a new cache object and copy the body data...

we should pick up #4167 again to add an assert telling us the actual return value. @beltrachi could you check if your machine is running out of memory?