Tollef Fog Heen : Hi, > | I'm just wondering which solution is best : > | - varnish as frontend to haproxy > | - haproxy as frontend to varnish > > Either should work fine, but test. You could just also move all static > content to a different host name and let haproxy be the dynamic one and > varnish the static one. > I did the tests. Varnish as frontend to haproxy is much more convenient to configure. Just a matter of minutes. On the other side haproxy as frontend to varnish is much more tricky and seems to need fine tuning as I had some timeout problems.
IMHO Varnish as frontend to haproxy is actually a KISS solution. -- Bernard FRIT _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
