hit rate on a staging website

[Jorge]

Just one minor nitpick, you have more "states" other than cache_hit &
cache_miss, look at varnishstat and sum your numbers, for me it's:

MAIN.client_req
= MAIN.cache_hit + MAIN.cache_hitpass + MAIN.cache_miss + MAIN.s_synth

I don't have s_pipe, so I'm not sure how/if they are counted as
client_req/s_req.

This should't alter your stats much (if any), but it's an easy thing to
correct.

Regards.

El Mon Dec 01 2014 at 8:23:17, Andrew Langhorn (<
andrew.langhorn at digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk>) escribió:

> I think that depends on all sorts of factors, especially including what
> your VCL says to Varnish to consider a hit, miss or pass.
>
> Let's assume you used defaults, though. Half of the content on your
> staging site is being returned by Varnish with no backend calls required.
> That seems a good starting point to me. If it's a development site, then
> things will be changing a lot all the time I assume and you won't want some
> stuff (like auth) cached. If it's an ecommerce site, you'll want even less
> cached - eg checkout etc.
>
> Instead of caring about your hit rate, I'd care more about your miss rate.
> These are the requests being sent to origin to respond via Varnish. And
> these are the requests that take up resources on your origin. Try to keep
> getting that lower, and you should be fine.
>
> By the way - have you tried varnishstat? It's a good way to get all these
> stats out of Varnish.
>
>
> On Monday, 1 December 2014, Tim Dunphy <bluethundr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>>  We've setup some monitoring on a staging version of a production web
>> site at work. It looks like we're getting about a .50 (or 50%) hit rate on
>> the staging site. We haven't monitored the production site for varnish hit
>> rates yet. We're using a Nagios check written in perl for that.
>>
>> But if it's possible to think of this in general terms, what I'd like to
>> know is if you think that .50 is a respectable hit rate for a php/drupal
>> site that's basically not in production, and the traffic it encounters is
>> synthetic. Basically it's tested out by the developers and load tests are
>> run against it using load generators as you might expect.
>>
>> And of course, some of the site content is dynamic and not meant to be
>> cached.
>>
>> Here's how it's broken down:
>>
>> Cache_hit_percent=50.22
>>
>>
>> cache_hit 222628
>>
>> cache_miss 220674
>>
>>
>> Here's we how calculate cache hit percent
>>
>>
>> cache_hit_percent = ( cache_hit / ( cache_hit + cache_miss ) ) * 100
>>
>>
>> So all I want to know from the more experienced varnish guys is, would
>> you consider this an acceptable cache hit rate given my situation?
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> --
>> GPG me!!
>>
>> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys F186197B
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> varnish-misc mailing list
> varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
> https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20141201/81985434/attachment.html>