El lun, 11-10-2010 a las 12:03 +1100, David Taylor escribió: > On 11/10/10 11:41, Daniel L. Miller wrote: > > For serving local requests for webapps, is there any benefit to > > placing a caching proxy like Squid between the workstations and > > Cherokee? In particular, in a single physical server application (no > > load-balancing server farm or anything else - just a single cherokee > > instance). > > > > I realize I could just setup and test it myself - but what fun would > > that be :) ? > > I've been wondering something similar... but wondering about varnish. I > noticed Cherokee has some support for caching static content. Does > anyone know how well it performs or if there's a noticeable benefit for > subdividing the work and having varnish handle most requests for static > cached content and having Cherokee only handle dynamic content? Was > this covered in any of the load testing I've seen mentioned on the blog?
Currently Proxy HTTP cache support in Cherokee it's on the way, and it's the only case you can't benefit from Cherokee's excellent cache implementation. I have experience with Varnish [1], and although it's a great product, it's hard to deploy because there are several constraints that you must take into account and it doesn't fit for any web application. I think that when you need a HTTP accelerator such as Varnish, you'll know it :) Kind regards, Juanjo [1] I wrote a post about it, but it's in Spanish: http://blackshell.usebox.net/archive/varnish-para-acelerar-nuestra-web.html -- jjm's home: http://www.usebox.net/jjm/ blackshell: http://blackshell.usebox.net/ ramble on: http://rambleon.usebox.net/ _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
