np.lists at sharphosting.uk
Mon Apr 10 07:40:07 CEST 2017
Thanks Guillaume, that's good to know. I'll give it some thoughts and perhaps implement it and keep an eye on the TTFB.
> On 9 Apr 2017, at 15:36, Guillaume Quintard <guillaume at varnish-software.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Guillaume Quintard
>> 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 unnecessary?
>> varnish-misc mailing list
>> varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the varnish-misc