Thanks, Ben!
On Oct 13, 2:40 pm, Ben Scofield <b...@heroku.com> wrote: > Sorry for the delay! I finally talked to our Varnish expert, and he > confirmed that: > > 1) our configuration should not impede Varnish's default behavior (re: > the first question in this thread), and > > 2) your app's resource configuration (# of dynos, etc.) doesn't affect > how much traffic Varnish can handle for it. Our best estimate for > Varnish's capacity for a single cached URL is on the order of 4000 > requests/second, sustained. > > I haven't dug deeply into your other thread yet, Thomas -- I'll take > another look at it when I can. > > Ben > > On Oct 12, 11:13 am, Thomas Balthazar <gro...@suitmymind.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Ben, > > > Any update about this? > > > Thanks, > > Thomas. > > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Thomas Balthazar <gro...@suitmymind.com> > > wrote: > > > Hello Ben, > > > > I just read you were about to talk to the Varnish specialist at Heroku. > > > I would really appreciate if you took the time to help me to find the > > > answer to those 2 unanswered questions about Varnish and caching : > > >http://groups.google.com/group/heroku/browse_thread/thread/8e39658d53... > > >http://groups.google.com/group/heroku/browse_thread/thread/fd23e886c2... > > > > Thanks in advance for your help! > > > Thomas. > > > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Ben Scofield <b...@heroku.com> wrote: > > >> Not sure why this didn't come through earlier, but: > > > >> I tried out a few experiments, and it looks like our setup doesn't > > >> interfere with this default behavior. I'm going to talk to someone > > >> with more intimate knowledge of our Varnish config to confirm that, > > >> but so far it looks promising. > > > >> Ben > > > >> On Oct 5, 12:00 pm, Chris Hanks <christopher.m.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> Is anyone from Heroku around that might know how their setup works? > > > >>> On Oct 2, 8:42 pm, Chris Hanks <christopher.m.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> > I'm wondering about Heroku's use of Varnish. Suppose I have a page > > >>> > that is expensive to produce (lots of database queries) but can be > > >>> > cached in Varnish. Right after Varnish's copy expires, if it's very > > >>> > popular, I might have a dozen people accessing it simultaneously > > >>> > before the newly created version can be stashed in Varnish. > > > >>> > So, based on a thread I found (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/ > > >>> > varnish/misc/14750) it looks like Varnish is smart enough by default > > >>> > to only send that expensive request to my backend once, and serve up > > >>> > the response to all the people waiting for it (to prevent a dogpiling > > >>> > effect). But I know that Heroku has its own configuration for Varnish > > >>> > (with lots of servers in a hash ring), and I was wondering whether > > >>> > it's still set up to do this. > > > >>> > Thanks! > > > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > >> Groups "Heroku" group. > > >> To post to this group, send email to her...@googlegroups.com. > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> heroku+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > >> For more options, visit this group > > >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/heroku?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Heroku" group. To post to this group, send email to her...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to heroku+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/heroku?hl=en.
