Varnish 3.0: Please help test.

[Audun Ytterdal]

Ok. I've been running 3.0-beta1 over the weekend on one of our 4 main
varnishes.

The following (ugly and very long) url compares a 2.1 against the new
3.0 , seems to be behaving almost identical on moderate traffic

http://munin.vgnett.no/naveed/#::int.vgnett.no::batista.int.vgnett.no:quinn.int.vgnett.no::acpi:bonding_err_bond0:cpu:df:df_inode:diskstats_iops:diskstats_latency:diskstats_throughput:diskstats_utilization:entropy:forks:fw_packets:http_loadtime:if_bond0:if_err_bond0:if_err_eth0:if_err_eth1:if_eth0:if_eth1:interrupts:iostat:iostat_ios:irqstats:load:memory:netstat:ntp_kernel_err:ntp_kernel_pll_freq:ntp_kernel_pll_off:ntp_offset:open_files:open_inodes:postfix_mailqueue:postfix_mailvolume:proc_pri:processes:sendmail_mailqueue:sendmail_mailstats:sendmail_mailtraffic:swap:threads:uptime:users:varnish_backend_traffic:varnish_expunge:varnish_hit_rate:varnish_memory_usage:varnish_objects:varnish_request_rate:varnish_threads:varnish_transfer_rates:varnish_uptime:vmstat:yum


Quinn has 3.0 batista has 2.1.5

Did the following changes to the vcl:

in vcl_fetch:

esi; -> set beresp.do_esi = true;

return(pass); -> return(hit_for_pass);

in vcl_hash

set req.hash += req.http.hash-input; -> hash_data(req.http.hash-input);

in vcl_error

explicit add + to concatinate strings

I find it a bit confusing that esi goes from a functional way of calling
it to a "setting variable/paramter"-way while req.hash goes in the
opposite direction from variable to functional way of calling it. Any
clearifying thoughts about that?

On 2011-05-18 22:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It's me, your Varnish software developer, got a minute ?
>
> Cool, I'll make it really brief:
>
> As you may, or may not, have noticed, we have pushed out a Varnish
> 3.0 Beta1 release:
>
>         http://www.varnish-cache.org/releases/varnish-cache-3.0-beta1
>
> The major news are two features:
>
>         GZIP/GUNZIP support, with or without ESI.
>
>         Streaming PASS and FETCH support.
>
> I have also added, undoubtedly, some bugs, and this is where you
> come into the picture:
>
> My website gets 75 hits an hour, but I am pretty sure you have a
> website that takes more traffic than that, why else would you be
> on the Varnish announce mailing list ?
>
> So if you could find a couple of hours to test out Varnish 3.0 and
> report back to me how it goes, I would really appreciate it.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Poul-Henning
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by
> incompetence.
>
> _______________________________________________
> varnish-announce mailing list
> varnish-announce at varnish-cache.org
> http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-announce
>


-- 
Audun Ytterdal
Driftsjef
VG Multimedia
tlf 92402277