Proper Pound/Varnish set-up?

[Jason Heffner]

Hi Jarry,

I personally prefer B myself, even with Pound. I used to use Pound but have since switched to nginx as my front end to handle ssl, ipv6, custom headers, virtual hosts, etc. I ran into issues with Pound at one point and have been very pleased with nginx and it gives me more flexibility. 

Jason

> On May 27, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Jarry <mr.jarry at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm quite new to varnish and http(s) caching, but I'd like to set up
> caching for my apache webserver (running a few web-sites with Drupal).
> I searched google for some info and found basically two possibilities:
> _____________________________________
> 
> A): Varnish listening on the port 80/http (caching Apache, running on
> 8080), and Pound listening only on the port 443/https (after https-
> termination forwarding traffic to Varnish).
> 
> -> Varnish(public_IP:80) -> Apache(lo:8080)
>      ^
>      |
> -> Pound(public_IP:443)
> _____________________________________
> 
> B): Pound listening on both 80/http and 443/https ports. Both http
> (directly) and https (after termination) traffic is forwarded to
> Varnish, and further to Apache.
> 
> -> Pound(public_IP:80,443) -> Varnish(lo:8008) -> Apache(lo:8080)
> _____________________________________
> 
> I tested both of these configurations, both of them seem to work
> (sort of, there are certain specific problems with both set-ups).
> But I still can not decide: which set-up is better, and why?
> 
> Jarry
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________________________
> This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists!
> Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> varnish-misc mailing list
> varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
> https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc