Hi fellow painters,
I'm using Varnish on a shared hosting site on a virtual server. Has been working
like a charm, however, I have for some time been wondering why ssh'ing into the
box and loading seldomly loaded pages seems to have gotten significantly slower
(maybe 10 seconds).
If I look at
Ole Laursen o...@... writes:
Andreas Fassl afa...@... writes:
Hi, especially the caching is very important for us, because we want to
keep traffic away from the mp3 repository server.
So you recommend:
Client requests streaming on demand mp3
- lighthttpd does streaming and requests
Andreas Fassl afa...@... writes:
Hi, especially the caching is very important for us, because we want to
keep traffic away from the mp3 repository server.
So you recommend:
Client requests streaming on demand mp3
- lighthttpd does streaming and requests from
- varnish as reverse proxy/cache
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@... writes:
This is necessary to be able to decide, per object, if it should be
stored in temporary (malloc) or persistent (disk) storage.
With some extra work, this will allow pass to become streaming.
Right now pass in vcl_recv is streaming, right? You're only
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@... writes:
Right now pass in vcl_recv is streaming, right?
You're only talking about if the
object is entered into the cache? Or both cases?
No, we never stream pass, the current design is aimed at freeing
up the backend as fast as possible, and we only start to
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@... writes:
In message loom.20090211t115351-...@..., Ole Laursen writes:
Why doesn't Varnish respect Cache-Control: private and Cache-Control:
no-cache
out of the box?
Because we see those as headers you want non-friendly caches to act on,
whereas we consider
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@... writes:
We don't consider varnish a shared cache in the RFC2616 sense of
the concept, because the varnish instance is fully under the control
of the servers administrator, and should therefore be considered
part of the server.
As I read that part of the RFC, shared
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@... writes:
If you look *really* carefully through the RFC2616, you will find one
reference to server side caches -- which they forgot to remove.
I get your point (the RFC doesn't apply to Varnish). It wasn't my intention to
slam Varnish for standards violation, though,
Andreas Fassl afa...@... writes:
after reading the docs it looks like I need an apache server to serve
the cached mp3 content for streaming on demand.
Any experience in configuration of this setup?
No, but I have set up a site with videos streamed with a Flash widget. We let
the video files
, and varnishhist
would then ignore requests with matching fields. -X didn't help, and
when looking at the source, it seems obvious why. :)
--
Ole Laursen
http://www.iola.dk/
___
varnish-misc mailing list
varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no
http://projects.linpro.no/mailman
10 matches
Mail list logo
