Varnish is restarting frequently

[emilio brambilla]

hello,

On 2012/05/09 3:11 PM, Sparsh Gupta wrote:
> By efficient do you also mean fast? Unfortunately the only thing I 
> care is response times out of these boxes. I am happy to get more RAM 
> if needed but got to have best possible performance/response times out 
> of them (both both Hits, misses and passed queries). Are you sure file 
> will be better than malloc + swap as far as speed / response times are 
> concerned
with the same hw, if the cache does not fit in the physical memory, 
'file' is better than malloc+swap.
of course with 'file' your operating system will also use the physical 
ram as cache of the disk.

if you can buy memory enough to fit all the cache in ram, than it's the 
best performance configuration (using malloc, of course for the 
storage), as ram is better than any disk (even ssd) for quick response 
time and transfer rate.

-- 
bye,
emilio