My random thoughts
andersb at vgnett.no
Fri Feb 17 18:11:45 CET 2006
> "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" <des at linpro.no> writes:
>> I am fine with fancy block storage, and I am tempted to suggest:
>> Berkeley DB I have always pictured Varnish with a Berkley DB
>> backend. Why? I _think_ it is fast (only website info to go on
>> http://www.sleepycat.com/products/bdb.html and
>> its block storage, and wildcard purge could potentially be as easy as:
>> delete from table where URL like '%bye-bye%';
> Berkeley DB does not have an SQL interface or any kind of query
Okay, I knew it did not have a SQL interface, but not that it did not
deliver a query engine of some sort. Anyway Berkeley DB (now Oracle owned
:)) does say this on their homepage:
"Berkeley DB is the ideal choice for static queries over dynamic data,
while traditional relational databases are well suited for dynamic queries
over static data."
I did not paste this in to argue that you and Berkeley have a different
definition of queries :) But rather that the "queries" we are gonna use
for this are the same, and the data dynamic. So at first glance it looks
to be right for us if it's _fast_. But no fear, I can kill darlings :)
>> "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk at phk.freebsd.dk> writes:
>> > Abuse mitigation interface to firewall/traffic shaping: Allow
>> > the central node to put an IP/Net into traffic shaping or take
>> > it out of traffic shaping firewall rules. Monitor/interface
>> > process (not main Varnish process) calls script to config
>> > firewalling.
>> This sounds like a really good feature. Hope it can be solved in
>> Linux as well. Not sure they have the fancy IPFW filters etc.
> They have iptables and other equivalents.
Brilliant. Now lets pray they work the way they should, and are dynamic :)
More information about the varnish-dev