In message 4a24a75e.1030...@zopyx.com, Andreas Jung writes:
Examining varnishstat to see what happens.
At what in particular. Looking at varnishstat does not give me a clue
about a possible problem.
Dropped requests. A small number is OK, a continuos growth is not.
(overflowed requests are
Ok, so your average latency is 16ms. At a concurrency of 10, at most,
you can obtain 625r/s.
(1 request/connection / 0.016s = 62.5 request/s/connection * 10
connections = 625 request/s)
Try increasing your benchmark concurrency.
--Michael
On Jun 1, 2009, at 11:10 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
In message 4a24c23e.2060...@zopyx.com, Andreas Jung writes:
Output of varnishstat:
[...]
and the result of 'ab':
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 14
66% 16
75% 18
80% 19
90% 23
95% 26
98% 31
99% 36
100% 3015
Sorry for the noise. The customer was running a transparent proxy within
the network
without telling me. Now I reach a performance of roughly 3000
requests/seconds which
is fast enough however still slower than Squid.
Andreas
On 01.06.09 19:47, Andreas Jung wrote:
Running Varnish 2.0.4 on a
Running Varnish 2.0.4 on a Debian installation (dual-core, 2.8 GHz).
Apache-Bench gives me a performance of 500-600 requests/second against
a cached HTML page - even with an almost empty VCL configuration file.
Squid gives me about 4000 requests/second on the same cached page.
What is the best
In message 4a241423.4090...@zopyx.com, Andreas Jung writes:
Running Varnish 2.0.4 on a Debian installation (dual-core, 2.8 GHz).
Apache-Bench gives me a performance of 500-600 requests/second against
a cached HTML page - even with an almost empty VCL configuration file.
Squid gives me about
