<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jan 16, 2010, at 7:32 AM, Michael Fischer wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Bendik Heltne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bheltne@gmail.com">bheltne@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">Our Varnish servers have ~ 120.000 - 150.000 objects cached in ~ 4GB<br>
memory and the backends have a much easier life than before Varnish.<br>
We are about to upgrade RAM on the Varnish boxes, and eventually we<br>
can switch to disk cache if needed. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you receive more than 100 requests/sec per Varnish instance and you use a disk cache, you will die. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I was surprised by this, what appears to be grossly irresponsible guidance, given how large the installed base is that does thousands per second quite happily.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps there's missing background for this statement? Do you mean swap instead of Varnish file/mmap? Disk could just as easily mean SSD these days. Even years ago on Squid and crappy EIDE drives you could manage 1-2,000 requests per second.</div><div>-- </div><div>Ken</div></div><br></body></html>