On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Don Faulkner <[email protected]> wrote: > I like the setup. But for some reason I think it needs to be: > > web server -> load balancer -> cache -> load balancer -> ssl endpoint
One thing to consider; almost any server that is still within warranty can deliver at least 1Gbps of traffic through Varnish, on new hardware reaching 10Gbps shouldn't be that big a deal (is there someone out there with 10Gbps hardware that would like to help us test? :-). So, you should ask yourself - do you really need a load balancer in front of Varnish? Having more Varnish server than you need will decrease your hit rate (unless you're hashing on the URL) and will increase your response time. It will also add to the complexity of the setup. Relying on a simple cluster of just two servere where just the IP address moves in case of failure will in a lot of scenarios lead to better performance and better uptime. -- Per Buer, Varnish Software Phone: +47 21 98 92 61 / Mobile: +47 958 39 117 / skype: per.buer _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.varnish-cache.org/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
