Varnish and Perlbal
andre.cruz at segula.pt
Mon Jul 2 16:21:12 CEST 2007
On 2007/07/02, at 14:59, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> André Cruz <andre.cruz at segula.pt> writes:
>> 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?
> Isn't that really the same question? Either you run Varnish in
> front of
> Perlbal on the Perlbal servers, or you run it in front of Apache on
> Apache servers.
Well... You can run varnish on the Perlbal servers and Perbal can
still be in front of Varnish. But since varnish doesn't do load
balancing it seems that it's better to let Perlbal handle the request
I would prefer to run Varnish on the Perlbal machines because they
have 4 processors and lots of RAM, largely unused by perlbal. The
apache machines on the other hand.... :) Again, if Varnish can't
select a backend from a pool to satisfy cache misses then I may just
as well have one Varnish for each apache and run them on the same
machine... We'll see.
>> Perlbal is probably better at load-balancing since it is it's core
>> function, no?
> Considering that Varnish doesn't do load balancing at all (yet), I
> concur that Perlbal is probably better at it :)
Ok, got it. :)
More information about the varnish-misc