On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:20 PM, jean-marc pouchoulon wrote: >> Use-cases differ of course, but I'm partial to the other way >> around. Put Apache in front of Varnish and Varnish in front of >> Zope. And if you need load balancing, insert something like Pound >> between Varnish and the Zeo clients (although there is some work >> in Varnish trunk to add load balancing). This configuration frees >> up Apache to serve other stuff besides the Varnish cached content. >> > IMHO apache perf cannot rivalize with varnish , that's why I put > them behind varnish. We have differents applications (differents > apache) and varnish regex are sufficient to switch the traffic. > Apache 2.2 (load balancing + mod_rewrite) is used to do load > balancing on ZEO .In our case there are also hardware compression > and load balancing in front of varnish. > > but "Use-cases differ of course" and there are many good solutions > and I am not using plone
Note, this configuration has nothing to do with whether one is using Plone. :-) Varnish is good as a proxy in front of *slow* backends generating dynamic content, but I suspect it's probably of marginal benefit as a proxy to serve static content and possibly even when serving *fast* dynamic content. I'm curious about the claim about Apache performance in comparison to Varnish. Is Varnish serving from cache really that much faster than Apache serving static files? I suppose an argument can be made that Apache-in-front-of-Varnish might add an extra delay compared to Varnish serving from cache directly. I wonder if this delay is significant. Anyone have any benchmarks? Ric _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
