Ok. I've been running 3.0-beta1 over the weekend on one of our 4 main varnishes.
The following (ugly and very long) url compares a 2.1 against the new 3.0 , seems to be behaving almost identical on moderate traffic http://munin.vgnett.no/naveed/#::int.vgnett.no::batista.int.vgnett.no:quinn.int.vgnett.no::acpi:bonding_err_bond0:cpu:df:df_inode:diskstats_iops:diskstats_latency:diskstats_throughput:diskstats_utilization:entropy:forks:fw_packets:http_loadtime:if_bond0:if_err_bond0:if_err_eth0:if_err_eth1:if_eth0:if_eth1:interrupts:iostat:iostat_ios:irqstats:load:memory:netstat:ntp_kernel_err:ntp_kernel_pll_freq:ntp_kernel_pll_off:ntp_offset:open_files:open_inodes:postfix_mailqueue:postfix_mailvolume:proc_pri:processes:sendmail_mailqueue:sendmail_mailstats:sendmail_mailtraffic:swap:threads:uptime:users:varnish_backend_traffic:varnish_expunge:varnish_hit_rate:varnish_memory_usage:varnish_objects:varnish_request_rate:varnish_threads:varnish_transfer_rates:varnish_uptime:vmstat:yum Quinn has 3.0 batista has 2.1.5 Did the following changes to the vcl: in vcl_fetch: esi; -> set beresp.do_esi = true; return(pass); -> return(hit_for_pass); in vcl_hash set req.hash += req.http.hash-input; -> hash_data(req.http.hash-input); in vcl_error explicit add + to concatinate strings I find it a bit confusing that esi goes from a functional way of calling it to a "setting variable/paramter"-way while req.hash goes in the opposite direction from variable to functional way of calling it. Any clearifying thoughts about that? On 2011-05-18 22:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > Hi, > > It's me, your Varnish software developer, got a minute ? > > Cool, I'll make it really brief: > > As you may, or may not, have noticed, we have pushed out a Varnish > 3.0 Beta1 release: > > http://www.varnish-cache.org/releases/varnish-cache-3.0-beta1 > > The major news are two features: > > GZIP/GUNZIP support, with or without ESI. > > Streaming PASS and FETCH support. > > I have also added, undoubtedly, some bugs, and this is where you > come into the picture: > > My website gets 75 hits an hour, but I am pretty sure you have a > website that takes more traffic than that, why else would you be > on the Varnish announce mailing list ? > > So if you could find a couple of hours to test out Varnish 3.0 and > report back to me how it goes, I would really appreciate it. > > Thanks in advance, > > Poul-Henning > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by > incompetence. > > _______________________________________________ > varnish-announce mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-announce > -- Audun Ytterdal Driftsjef VG Multimedia tlf 92402277 _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
