> Let me clear, in case I have not been clear enough already: > > I am not talking about the edge cases of those low-concurrency, high-latency, > scripted-language webservers that are becoming tied to web application > frameworks like Rails and Django and that are the best fit for front-end > caching because they are slow at serving dynamic content. > > But we are not discussing serving dynamic content in this thread anyway. We > are talking about binary files, aren't we? Yes? Blobs on disk? Unless > everyone is living on a different plane then me, then I think that's what > we're talking about. > > For those you should be using a general purpose webserver. There's no reason > you can't run both side by side. And I stand by my original statement about > their performance relative to Varnish.
Definitely wasn't clear until now. But now I'm not sure what we're discussing, since comparing the performance of a reverse-proxy cache to an origin server is rather pointless. A cache hit under Varnish will be comparable in latency to a dedicated static server hit, regardless of the backend. The rate of misses will determine whether a dedicated static server would be required, and this is a growth path that many companies follow. -- Ken > --Michael _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
