<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14pt">Hi Dridi,<br><br>If you post your answer on ServerFault, I want to accept it.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Adrian.<br><div><span><br></span></div><div style="display: block;" class="yahoo_quoted"> <br> <br> <div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 12:06, Adrian Ber <beradrian@yahoo.com> wrote:<br> </font> </div> <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> <div class="y_msg_container"><div id="yiv1790533406"><div><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt;"><div id="yiv1790533406"><div><div
style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt;"><div id="yiv1790533406yui_3_13_0_rc_1_9_1381917085786_8"><span id="yiv1790533406yui_3_13_0_rc_1_9_1381917085786_14">Definitely VCL is easier to use than Apache config. And Varnish/Apache and Tomcat will be sitting on the same (cloud) machine.<br clear="none">Then practically I would be interested in a comparison of the overhead added by Apache vs Varnish in terms of non-cached requests.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Thanks,<br clear="none">Adrian.<br clear="none"></span></div><div class="yiv1790533406yqt4643383649" id="yiv1790533406yqt48393"><div class="yiv1790533406yqt5114426168" id="yiv1790533406yqt86734"><div class="yiv1790533406yahoo_quoted" id="yiv1790533406yui_3_13_0_rc_1_9_1381917085786_10" style="display:block;"> <br clear="none"> <br clear="none"> <div class="yiv1790533406yui_3_13_0_rc_1_1_1381917085786_17477" style="font-family:times
new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt;"> <div class="yiv1790533406yui_3_13_0_rc_1_1_1381917085786_17478" style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 11:54, Dridi Boukelmoune <dridi.boukelmoune@zenika.com> wrote:<br clear="none"> </font> </div> <blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255);margin-left:5px;margin-top:5px;padding-left:5px;"> <div class="yiv1790533406y_msg_container">Hi,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I have no data to show, but since I use all three tools, I can give<br clear="none">you my two cents :)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Varnish + Tomcat is definitely the simplest architecture, because it<br clear="none">does not involve AJP. I would also consider changing the default<br clear="none">(blocking) http
connector on the Tomcat side and measuring performance<br clear="none">improvements (non blocking, native...). I'm also a big fan of the VCL<br clear="none">which feels a lot more natural than httpd's configuration to me.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">As I trust Varnish not to be the bottleneck, I am not keen on adding a<br clear="none">new indirection (httpd) for a binary protocol that is not relevant to<br clear="none">me anymore. I believe (still no data) having a 10Gb/s connection<br clear="none">between Varnish and Tomcat (I
assume they're not sitting too far from<br clear="none">each other) outperforms the compactness of AJP (serialization<br clear="none">involved).<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Best Regards,<br clear="none">Dridi<br clear="none"><div class="yiv1790533406yqt9784080542" id="yiv1790533406yqtfd46697"><br clear="none">On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Adrian Ber <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:beradrian@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:beradrian@yahoo.com">beradrian@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none">> Does anyone have some comparison data in terms of performance for using in<br clear="none">> front of Tomcat either Varnish or Apache with mod_jk. I know that AJ<br clear="none">> connector suppose to be faster than HTTP, but I was thinking that in<br clear="none">> combination Varnish which is lighter and highly optimized could perform<br clear="none">> better. There is also the discussion between static
resources (which I think<br clear="none">> will perform
faster with Varnish than Apache, even with mod_cache) and<br clear="none">> dynamic pages.<br clear="none">> I asked this question on ServerFault too<br clear="none">> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://serverfault.com/questions/545793/varnish-tomcat-vs-apache-mod-jk-tomcat">http://serverfault.com/questions/545793/varnish-tomcat-vs-apache-mod-jk-tomcat</a><br clear="none">> Which configuration would be advisable Varnish + Tomcat or Apache +<br clear="none">> mod_cache + mod_jk +Tomcat?<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Thanks,<br clear="none">> Adrian Ber.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">> _______________________________________________<br clear="none">> varnish-misc mailing list<br clear="none">> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:varnish-misc@varnish-cache.org" target="_blank"
href="mailto:varnish-misc@varnish-cache.org">varnish-misc@varnish-cache.org</a><br clear="none">> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc">https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc</a><br clear="none"></div><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div></div></div> </div></div></div></div></div></div><br><br></div> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> </div></body></html>