varnish overhead when only passing to backend without caching

[Guillaume Quintard]

Why not measure it?

The overhead will mainly be the time to go trough two network links instead
of one, but since Varnish pools connections, you don't even have that extra
connection cost.

As to the delay introduced by Varnish, you can have a look at this:
https://github.com/varnishcache/varnish-cache/commit/d7b9296012f6a5d41c48198ab2ea991a173c3b2c
(this is talking about the time between opening and closing the session).

I think it's telling.


On Oct 29, 2016 09:12, "Admin Beckspaced" <admin at beckspaced.com> wrote:

> hello again,
>
> my current setup is varnish 5 in front of apache web server with 30
> different domains / websites
> in my vlc i can switch between sites and decide to do varnish caching or
> just passing to the backend with out caching.
>
> what's the overhead / delay with varnish when i just pass everything to
> the backend and back to the client without varnish doing any caching?
>
> i mean there must be some overhead as varnish is in between ...
> ... but how big is it? time delay?
>
> does anyone here have any experience with this?
>
> thanks & greetings
> becki
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161029/309de5f4/attachment.html>