On 26.06.12 19:40, "Hugo Cisneiros (Eitch)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Allan Brand <[email protected]> >wrote: >> I'm new to Varnish and I've seen a number of discussions where Varnish >> is used in conjunction with a load balancer in the following manner: >> [LB] -> [Varnish] -> [www 1-n] >> >> I'm guessing that Varnish is running locally on the www hosts? If >> not, Is there any reason why placing Varnish in front of the load >> balancers instead would not be ideal? >> [Varnish] -> [LB} -> [www 1-n] > >Usually you use LB in front of varnish for high availability cases. >Then, if a varnish fails, the other will take over all the work. > >But there's no problem using Varnish as a load balancer as it does a >great job, as others said in this thread. But you must pay attention >to the fail over/load balancing on the varnish as well :-) I'm really missing the functionality of easily taking a backend out of load balancing. And I'm talking about gracefully going out of load balancing. As in: Established connections are still allowed, but new connections are denied. Doing it to "destroy" the probe url doesn't sound like a clean way. And rebuilding the vcl part with the backend definition doesn't sound cool either. That's sad, then apart from that, varnish is doing great as a load balancer :) And I do use it in production with machines were taking them hard out of load balancing doesn't hurt. Cheers, Marian _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
