ric at digitalmarbles.com
Tue Sep 25 10:52:59 CEST 2007
On Sep 25, 2007, at 1:07 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Ricardo Newbery <ric at digitalmarbles.com> writes:
>> 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* dynamic content.
> You're wrong. Varnish improves performance even for static content
> and fast dynamic content. Varnish serves requests from memory, and
> doesn't spend valuable time writing logs.
If you don't need logs, it just as easy to turn this off in Apache.
>> 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?
> Yes, as long as your client isn't apachebench.
I'm sure it's faster, but how much faster? Any benchmarks against a
Performance-tweaking is like security-tweaking. At a certain point,
it's just a black hole you can throw more money and effort into and
get marginal returns. And increasing performance (as in increasing
security) often means sacrificing some power or flexibility
elsewhere. For some use-cases, the marginal returns and decreased
flexibility are worth the effort. For many, I suspect it's probably
not. In any case, it's better to make these decisions based on some
More information about the varnish-misc