guillaume at varnish-software.com
Sun Apr 9 22:36:10 CEST 2017
You can test, but I don't think it's worth the trouble. Virtually all
clients support gzip, so you'll only really use one version of your object.
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Nigel Peck <np.lists at sharphosting.uk> wrote:
> I am looking at how best to set up compression on my setup, that is a
> Varnish server handing out cached content from a separate back-end server.
> In his notes on the subject, Poul-Henning says that there is no need to
> store both a gzipped and an un-gzipped copy of requests in the cache, since
> Varnish can gunzip on the fly.
> My question is, wouldn't it be quicker to have both a gzipped and
> ungzipped copy stored in memory, so that this does not need to be changed
> on the fly? Or is the time taken to ungzip so negligible as to make this
> varnish-misc mailing list
> varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the varnish-misc