2010/1/19 pub crawler :
> Wanted in inject another discussion heady item into this thread and
> see if the idea is confirmed in other folks current architecture.
> Sorry in advance for being verbose.
>
> Often web servers (my experience) are smaller servers, less RAM and
> fewer CPUs than the app s
On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message , "Michael S.
> Fis
> cher" writes:
>
>> Does Varnish already try to utilize CPU caches efficiently by employing =
>> some sort of LIFO thread reuse policy or by pinning thread pools to =
>> specific CPUs? If not, there might b
In message , "Michael S. Fis
cher" writes:
>Does Varnish already try to utilize CPU caches efficiently by employing =
>some sort of LIFO thread reuse policy or by pinning thread pools to =
>specific CPUs? If not, there might be some opportunity for optimization =
>there.
You should really read t
Wanted in inject another discussion heady item into this thread and
see if the idea is confirmed in other folks current architecture.
Sorry in advance for being verbose.
Often web servers (my experience) are smaller servers, less RAM and
fewer CPUs than the app servers and databases. A typical we
On Jan 18, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <97f066dd-4044-46a7-b3e1-34ce928e8...@slide.com>, Ken Brownfield
> wri
> tes:
>
>> Ironically and IMHO, one of the barriers to Varnish scalability
>> is its thread model, though this problem strikes in the thousands
>> of connect
On Jan 18, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Ken Brownfield wrote:
> Ironically and IMHO, one of the barriers to Varnish scalability is its thread
> model, though this problem strikes in the thousands of connections.
Agreed. In an early thread on varnish-misc in February 2008 I concluded that
reducing thread_
In message <97f066dd-4044-46a7-b3e1-34ce928e8...@slide.com>, Ken Brownfield wri
tes:
>Ironically and IMHO, one of the barriers to Varnish scalability
>is its thread model, though this problem strikes in the thousands
>of connections.
It's only a matter of work to pool slow clients in Varnish into
In message <87f6439f-76fe-416c-b750-5a53a9712...@dynamine.net>, "Michael S. Fis
cher" writes:
>I'm merely contending that the small amount of added =
>latency for a cache hit, where neither server is operating at full =
>capacity, is not enough to significantly affect the user experience.
Which t
On Jan 18, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <02d0ec1a-d0b0-40ee-b278-b57714e54...@dynamine.net>, "Michael S.
> Fis
> cher" writes:
>
>> But we are not discussing serving dynamic content in this thread
>> anyway. We are talking about binary files, aren't we? Yes? Blobs
>
On Jan 18, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
>> Does [Apache] perform "well" for static files in the absence of any other
>> function? Yes. Would I choose it for anything other than an application
>> server? No. There are much better solutions out there, and the proof is in
>> the
In message <364f5e3e-0d1e-4c95-b101-b7a00c276...@slide.com>, Ken Brownfield wri
tes:
>A cache hit under Varnish will be comparable in latency to a
>dedicated static server hit, regardless of the backend.
Only provided the "dedicated static server" is written to work in
a modern SMP/VM system, whi
In message <02d0ec1a-d0b0-40ee-b278-b57714e54...@dynamine.net>, "Michael S. Fis
cher" writes:
>But we are not discussing serving dynamic content in this thread
>anyway. We are talking about binary files, aren't we? Yes? Blobs
>on disk? Unless everyone is living on a different plane then me,
>t
On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Ken Brownfield wrote:
> Adding unnecessary software overhead will add latency to requests to the
> filesystem, and obviously should be avoided. However, a cache in front of a
> general web server will 1) cause an object miss to have additional latency
> (though sma
> Let me clear, in case I have not been clear enough already:
>
> I am not talking about the edge cases of those low-concurrency, high-latency,
> scripted-language webservers that are becoming tied to web application
> frameworks like Rails and Django and that are the best fit for front-end
> c
On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Ken Brownfield wrote:
>
>> In the real world, sites run their applications through web servers, and
>> this fact does (and should) guide the decision on the base web server to
>> use, not static file serving.
>
> The average workload of a cache hit, last I looked, was 7 system
> calls, with typical service times, from request received from kernel
> until response ready to be written to kernel, of 10-20 microseconds.
Well that explains some of the performance difference in Varnish (in
our experience) vers
On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message , "Michael S.
> Fis
> cher" writes:
>
>> That's why you don't use those webservers as origin servers for
>> that purpose. But you don't use Varnish for it either. It's not
>> an origin server anyway.
>
> Actually, for protocol
On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:37 PM, pub crawler wrote:
>> Differences in latency of serving static content can vary widely based on
>> the web server in use, easily tens of milliseconds or more. There are
>> dozens of web servers out there, some written in interpreted languages, many
>> custom-written f
In message , "Michael S. Fis
cher" writes:
>That's why you don't use those webservers as origin servers for
>that purpose. But you don't use Varnish for it either. It's not
>an origin server anyway.
Actually, for protocol purposes, Varnish is an origin server.
If you read RFC2616 very carefull
In message <4c3149fb1001181416r7cd1c1c2n923a438d6a0df...@mail.gmail.com>, pub c
rawler writes:
>So far Varnish is performing very well for us as a web server of these
>cached objects. The connection time for an item out of Varnish is
>noticeably faster than with web servers we have used - even w
> Differences in latency of serving static content can vary widely based on
> the web server in use, easily tens of milliseconds or more. There are
> dozens of web servers out there, some written in interpreted languages, many
> custom-written for a specific application, many with add-ons and modu
On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Ken Brownfield wrote:
>> I have a hard time believing that any difference in the total response time
>> of a cached static object between Varnish and a general-purpose webserver
>> will be statistically significant, especially considering typical Internet
>> network
> I have a hard time believing that any difference in the total response time
> of a cached static object between Varnish and a general-purpose webserver
> will be statistically significant, especially considering typical Internet
> network latency. If there's any difference it should be well u
On Jan 18, 2010, at 2:16 PM, pub crawler wrote:
>> Most kernels cache recently-accessed files in RAM, and so common web servers
>> such as Apache can ?>already serve up static objects very quickly if they
>> are located in the buffer cache. (Varnish's apparent >speed is largely
>> based on the
> Most kernels cache recently-accessed files in RAM, and so common web servers
> such as Apache can ?>already serve up static objects very quickly if they are
> located in the buffer cache. (Varnish's apparent >speed is largely based on
> the same phenomenon.) If the data is already cached in
On Jan 18, 2010, at 12:58 PM, pub crawler wrote:
> This is an inquiry for the Varnish community.
>
> Wondering how many folks are using Varnish purely for binary storage
> and caching (graphic files, archives, audio files, video files, etc.)?
>
> Interested specifically in large Varnish installa
This is an inquiry for the Varnish community.
Wondering how many folks are using Varnish purely for binary storage
and caching (graphic files, archives, audio files, video files, etc.)?
Interested specifically in large Varnish installations with either
high number of files or where files are larg
27 matches
Mail list logo
