Varnish minus VCL?
jallspaw at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 27 06:09:50 CEST 2007
Not to take away from what sounds like a fun and sensible idea, but done correctly,
the suggestions that Ask made (perbal, or an LB) don't have to be viewed as "bottlenecks"
or a single-point of failure. Load balancers can be very good things to have. :)
----- Original Message ----
From: Luke Macpherson <varnish at lukem.org>
To: Ask Bjørn Hansen <ask at develooper.com>
Cc: varnish-dev at projects.linpro.no
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:29:12 PM
Subject: Re: Varnish minus VCL?
> How many servers do you have that this is a concern?
Enough. Though frankly, even if you had a small number of servers it
would still be nice to support pluggable load balancing and failover
> Have you considered just putting perlbal or a load-balancer appliance
> between varnish and your backend servers? Then the dedicated device
> can take care of load-balancing, fail-over and all that fun - and you
> can use the management systems there to take backend servers in and
> out. Varnish then will just have to do what it does so well,
Inserting a bottleneck and single point of failure doesn't sound like
a good idea. Having m varnish servers talking to n backends gives a
much better failover and redundancy model.
By the way, I'm not asking anyone to implement this for me. I am a
software engineer (not a network administrator), and since I have to
do this anyway it's worth doing it in a way that can potentially
contribute back to the project.
varnish-dev mailing list
varnish-dev at projects.linpro.no
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
that gives answers, not web links.
More information about the varnish-dev