Best Practices - Suggestions Request

Anup Shukla anup at
Tue Jun 26 12:23:46 CEST 2007

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <4680C2E3.2010108 at>, Anup Shukla writes:
>> I understand that running both services on the same server is probably a 
>> bad idea, but due to time constraints i had no option but to go ahead 
>> with the current setup.
> It is not an obviously bad idea, and in many cases it is likely to
> work quite well.
> If it works for you, be happy about the saved hardware :-)
That makes me feel a lot better now. Thank you. :)
> It's not much to go from, but here are some ideas:
> 1. Do you have enough storage space ?  By default Varnish takes a
> fixed fraction of the free space in /tmp, that may not be enough.
> Use the "-s" argument to specify a different directory and/or how
> much space you want to use.
I have put the cache file (or whatever its called as) under /cache/varnish
the parameters are .................... -s 

Disk space should not be a problem as there is plenty available.
Initially i had kept the size to 8G, but changed it 2G later.
I doubt if that has any affect apart from being able to store not more 
than 2G of cached content.

The only reason i changed it to 2G was that, i noticed the size of 
varnishd process kept on increasing.
Now, i am not a Linux expert so did not have the knowledge about the 
whole idea of using disk space as RAM.
However a bit of Google search cleared up that my fears were baseless.
Or is it that there is a relation between the process size and the 
on-disk cache file? ( I hope this is not out-of-place)

Did not change it back to 8G though, it works fine for me with the way 
its configured. ;)
I will keep an eye on the process to see if i can find anything specific 
to relate to the problem of "Varnish dying in 7-10 days".

Do i need to check for something specific?
>> Sorry, if i have asked too many questions at one go.
> You're welcome :-)
Much appreciated. Thanks again. :)


More information about the varnish-misc mailing list