2011/9/27 Marinos Yannikos <[email protected]>: > How are you distributing the traffic between your servers? From the > bandwidth vs. hits it seems that connections are handled differently, my > guess was keepalives lasting longer with Varnish and therefore if your load > balancer uses a "least connections" metric or similar, it will simply send > more traffic to servers that close connections earlier. Which means that > this says nothing about the actual performance of the servers and whether it > would get better or worse if you switched all servers to Varnish.
The loadbalancer is an OpenBSD with a relayd pool in round-robin mode, all hosts having the same weight inside the pool. The timeout for an established session is fixed at 600 seconds, which is more than Varnish's default_ttl (120 seconds). > How do the HTTP headers look when coming from Varnish vs. Squid? Perhaps > they offer some hints. For the same file, we have : Squid : HTTP/1.0 200 OK Server: nginx/1.0.4 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:09:21 GMT Content-Type: image/jpeg Content-Length: 95888 Last-Modified: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:17:19 GMT Expires: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:09:21 GMT Cache-Control: max-age=86400 Accept-Ranges: bytes Age: 795 X-Cache: HIT from www.example.com X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from www.example.com:80 Connection: keep-alive Varnish : HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: image/jpeg Last-Modified: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:17:19 GMT Expires: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:11:32 GMT Cache-Control: max-age=86400 Content-Length: 95888 Accept-Ranges: bytes Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:22:36 GMT Age: 664 Connection: keep-alive The size difference between the two is 108 bytes, not enough to explain the traffic difference. Thank you for your time. _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
