ric at digitalmarbles.com
Tue Sep 25 09:54:13 CEST 2007
On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:20 PM, jean-marc pouchoulon wrote:
>> Use-cases differ of course, but I'm partial to the other way
>> around. Put Apache in front of Varnish and Varnish in front of
>> Zope. And if you need load balancing, insert something like Pound
>> between Varnish and the Zeo clients (although there is some work
>> in Varnish trunk to add load balancing). This configuration frees
>> up Apache to serve other stuff besides the Varnish cached content.
> IMHO apache perf cannot rivalize with varnish , that's why I put
> them behind varnish. We have differents applications (differents
> apache) and varnish regex are sufficient to switch the traffic.
> Apache 2.2 (load balancing + mod_rewrite) is used to do load
> balancing on ZEO .In our case there are also hardware compression
> and load balancing in front of varnish.
> but "Use-cases differ of course" and there are many good solutions
> and I am not using plone
Note, this configuration has nothing to do with whether one is using
Varnish is good as a proxy in front of *slow* backends generating
dynamic content, but I suspect it's probably of marginal benefit as a
proxy to serve static content and possibly even when serving *fast*
I'm curious about the claim about Apache performance in comparison to
Varnish. Is Varnish serving from cache really that much faster than
Apache serving static files? I suppose an argument can be made that
Apache-in-front-of-Varnish might add an extra delay compared to
Varnish serving from cache directly. I wonder if this delay is
significant. Anyone have any benchmarks?
More information about the varnish-misc