Hi Adrian, Sorry I missed your previous mail. I don't use ServerFault, StackOverflow and the likes, only anonymously when it shows up in my search results. Feel free to reuse my answer on ServerFault, I'm glad it helped you :)
Cheers, Dridi On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Adrian Ber <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dridi, > > If you post your answer on ServerFault, I want to accept it. > > Thanks, > Adrian. > > > > On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 12:06, Adrian Ber <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Definitely VCL is easier to use than Apache config. And Varnish/Apache and > Tomcat will be sitting on the same (cloud) machine. > Then practically I would be interested in a comparison of the overhead added > by Apache vs Varnish in terms of non-cached requests. > > Thanks, > Adrian. > > > On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 11:54, Dridi Boukelmoune > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have no data to show, but since I use all three tools, I can give > you my two cents :) > > Varnish + Tomcat is definitely the simplest architecture, because it > does not involve AJP. I would also consider changing the default > (blocking) http connector on the Tomcat side and measuring performance > improvements (non blocking, native...). I'm also a big fan of the VCL > which feels a lot more natural than httpd's configuration to me. > > As I trust Varnish not to be the bottleneck, I am not keen on adding a > new indirection (httpd) for a binary protocol that is not relevant to > me anymore. I believe (still no data) having a 10Gb/s connection > between Varnish and Tomcat (I assume they're not sitting too far from > each other) outperforms the compactness of AJP (serialization > involved). > > Best Regards, > Dridi > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Adrian Ber <[email protected]> wrote: >> Does anyone have some comparison data in terms of performance for using in >> front of Tomcat either Varnish or Apache with mod_jk. I know that AJ >> connector suppose to be faster than HTTP, but I was thinking that in >> combination Varnish which is lighter and highly optimized could perform >> better. There is also the discussion between static resources (which I >> think >> will perform faster with Varnish than Apache, even with mod_cache) and >> dynamic pages. >> I asked this question on ServerFault too >> >> http://serverfault.com/questions/545793/varnish-tomcat-vs-apache-mod-jk-tomcat >> Which configuration would be advisable Varnish + Tomcat or Apache + >> mod_cache + mod_jk +Tomcat? >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian Ber. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> varnish-misc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc > > > > _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
