Varnish

[Darren VanBuren]

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:31, Stein Ove Rosseland
<so.rosseland at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Darren VanBuren <onekopaka at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:36, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip at kanarip.com> wrote:
>>> Mike McGrath wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Mike McGrath wrote:
>>>> > > I've been looking at a better proxy solution.  I initially pushed back
>>>> > > against varnish because it would complicate the environment, and this
>>> will
>>>> > > but since apache isn't cutting it I figured a slow incremental change is
>>>> > > the best approach.  So what I'm proposing is this:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > httpd(proxy) -> varnish(proxy) -> haproxy(proxy) -> httpd(app)
>>>> > >
>>>> > > So a couple of reasons why I'm choosing to do design, especially since,
>>> in
>>>> > > theory, varnish can completely replace both httpd and haproxy in that
>>>> > > picture.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > I do not have all that much positive experience wrt. Varnish's efficiency.
>>>> > Have you researched any other alternatives?
>
> If the content you are trying to cache are uncacheable, it really
> doesnt matter what tech you use. But if it is cacheable, varnish does
> the job better than any other alternative out there.
>
>
>> Varnish can be told not to use memory for caching, and that's how I've
>> used it, 1GB doesn't go a long way when you've got 64-bit Apache
>> HTTPd.
>
> It ends up in virtual memory anyhow, serving from disk is too slow.
> You probably have graphs showing the usage today?
>
> Cheers
> Stein Ove Rosseland
The site I was caching is long since dead, and therefore, the caching
system is also removed.

Darren L. VanBuren
=====================
http://theoks.net/