Good idea as always Stefan. We use Varnish primarily at this point to cache data from 3rd party providers. We do this because the 3rd pary data we serve out is highly predictable, mostly static in nature - things like weather forecast - which is fine to update just once every x hours. No need to have multiple requests for the same document going to 3rd party over and over. Stuff like RSS feeds are also very much cacheable for defined periods of time to reduce artificial load of repetitive requests.
Varnish has advanced configuration features for caching that we aren't using currently - as we are too busy with other projects to implement and test. The performance of Varnish is pretty fast when data is cached. In small tests we've done, even faster than Cherokee with same data cached. Varnish allows for custom configurable cache time based on filetype. It also allows custom redirection for authentication and various other in-line request munging of data and the request and ability to flush the request out anywhere in-line where certain conditions met in your config file. Of course once Cherokee launches caching for proxy I suspect we will stick with Cherokee only solution :) On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:09 AM, Stefan de Konink <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, pub crawler wrote: > >> We use Varnish for caching and some of the cache type control features >> it has. If something is not found in Varnish cache it forwards >> request over to another instance of Cherokee on port 82. The 2nd >> instance of Cherokee is another separate instance - different than our >> main port 80 Cherokee. > > Why don't you define what is in Varnish what you are missing in Cherokee? > > > Stefan > > _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
