Varnish and Perlbal

Denis Brækhus denis at
Mon Jul 2 16:00:53 CEST 2007

----- André Cruz <andre.cruz at> wrote:
> Ok, I'll try it both ways to test.
> And regarding my other question... Should Perlbal handle the request 
> first, and pass it to some varnish process or should varnish process 
> the request first and send only the misses to PerlBal+Apache?
> Perlbal is probably better at load-balancing since it is it's core  
> function, no?
> Thanks for your help,
> André


If we can assume one of the reasons you want to use Perlbal is to achieve some sort of failover capability, I would say place Perlbal in front of Varnish. If you have another provision to handle that and you only want to improve performance I would say it depends on your application really. I completely agree with DES though that implementing Varnish locally on the same box as apache is indeed the path of least configuration and fewest changes :P

>From what I have read on Perlbal it should be suited for placement in front of a cache such as varnish. 

Could I ask what your experience with Perlbal is? Is it a nice loadbalancer? How does your setup with it look like?  What kind of traffice do you see?

I gather the Varnish project is looking to implement some sort of basic load balancing capabilities into Varnish at some point in time.

Denis Braekhus - Teknisk Ansvarlig ABC Startsiden AS

More information about the varnish-misc mailing list