André Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right now I have 2 Perlbals balancing requests to 4 apache backends.
I'm very happy with Perlbal's load balancing capabilities so I'm
looking for the best way to integrate varnish with this Perlbal +
Apache configuration. Which should come first in the
Ok, I'll try it both ways to test.
And regarding my other question... Should Perlbal handle the request
first, and pass it to some varnish process or should varnish process
the request first and send only the misses to PerlBal+Apache?
Perlbal is probably better at load-balancing since it is
André Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And regarding my other question... Should Perlbal handle the request
first, and pass it to some varnish process or should varnish process
the request first and send only the misses to PerlBal+Apache?
Isn't that really the same question? Either you run
- André Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I'll try it both ways to test.
And regarding my other question... Should Perlbal handle the request
first, and pass it to some varnish process or should varnish process
the request first and send only the misses to PerlBal+Apache?
On 2007/07/02, at 14:59, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
André Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And regarding my other question... Should Perlbal handle the request
first, and pass it to some varnish process or should varnish process
the request first and send only the misses to PerlBal+Apache?
On 2007/07/02, at 15:00, Denis Brækhus wrote:
André,
If we can assume one of the reasons you want to use Perlbal is to
achieve some sort of failover capability, I would say place Perlbal
in front of Varnish. If you have another provision to handle that
and you only want to improve
