I may not have made that message crystal clear enough: My suggestion was **NOT** meant to indicate t
I may not have made that message crystal clear enough: My suggestion was NOT meant to indicate that you should just blindly raise the TTL, if that was how it was understood. 
Some use-cases (e.g. slowly / almost never changing data) can typically be cached for a (very) long time, in which case it would typically make absolutely no sense, to keep it alone on 600 seconds / 10 minutes. How far you could eventually go, would be depending on various different criteria though.
Looking at your elaboration later on, it does actually sound like it would justify for a long(er) TTL than the 600 seconds / 10 minutes. Maybe even longer than the 3600 seconds / 1 hour, that you indicated you raised it to.
Some use-cases (e.g. slowly / almost never changing data) can typically be cached for a (very) long time, in which case it would typically make absolutely no sense, to keep it alone on 600 seconds / 10 minutes. How far you could eventually go, would be depending on various different criteria though.
Looking at your elaboration later on, it does actually sound like it would justify for a long(er) TTL than the 600 seconds / 10 minutes. Maybe even longer than the 3600 seconds / 1 hour, that you indicated you raised it to.
