On Jan 18, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Ken Brownfield <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jan 16, 2010, at 7:32 AM, Michael Fischer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Bendik Heltne <[email protected]>
wrote:
Our Varnish servers have ~ 120.000 - 150.000 objects cached in ~ 4GB
memory and the backends have a much easier life than before Varnish.
We are about to upgrade RAM on the Varnish boxes, and eventually we
can switch to disk cache if needed.
If you receive more than 100 requests/sec per Varnish instance and
you use a disk cache, you will die.
I was surprised by this, what appears to be grossly irresponsible
guidance, given how large the installed base is that does thousands
per second quite happily.
Perhaps there's missing background for this statement? Do you mean
swap instead of Varnish file/mmap? Disk could just as easily mean
SSD these days. Even years ago on Squid and crappy EIDE drives you
could manage 1-2,000 requests per second
I should have been more clear. If you overcommit and use disk you
will die. Even SSD is a problem as the write latencies are high.
--Michael
_______________________________________________
varnish-misc mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
