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 performance I would say it depends on > your application really. I completely agree with DES though that > implementing Varnish locally on the same box as apache is indeed > the path of least configuration and fewest changes :P >
I'll start with that scenario then. > From what I have read on Perlbal it should be suited for placement > in front of a cache such as varnish. > > Could I ask what your experience with Perlbal is? Is it a nice > loadbalancer? How does your setup with it look like? What kind of > traffice do you see? > I use Perlbal for more than a year now and it has been a very good experience. Besides the great performance we have developed some custom plugins for it which I don't think would be possible with other solutions. We have numerous applications that use it... As an example, in one of them we have 2 perlbal servers in front of a pool of 4 apache servers and a traffic of about 40 Mbit/s. Without Perlbal all the apache workers would get used up quickly. Hope it helps, André Cruz _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
