Varnish and Perlbal
andre.cruz at segula.pt
Mon Jul 2 16:30:36 CEST 2007
On 2007/07/02, at 15:00, Denis Brækhus wrote:
> 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
I'll start with that scenario then.
> 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 use Perlbal for more than a year now and it has been a very good
experience. Besides the great performance we have developed some
custom plugins for it which I don't think would be possible with
other solutions. We have numerous applications that use it... As an
example, in one of them we have 2 perlbal servers in front of a pool
of 4 apache servers and a traffic of about 40 Mbit/s. Without Perlbal
all the apache workers would get used up quickly.
Hope it helps,
More information about the varnish-misc