Thanks Guillaume, that's good to know. I'll give it some thoughts and perhaps implement it and keep an eye on the TTFB.
Nigel > On 9 Apr 2017, at 15:36, Guillaume Quintard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > You can test, but I don't think it's worth the trouble. Virtually all clients > support gzip, so you'll only really use one version of your object. > > -- > Guillaume Quintard > >> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Nigel Peck <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I am looking at how best to set up compression on my setup, that is a >> Varnish server handing out cached content from a separate back-end server. >> In his notes on the subject, Poul-Henning says that there is no need to >> store both a gzipped and an un-gzipped copy of requests in the cache, since >> Varnish can gunzip on the fly. >> >> https://varnish-cache.org/docs/4.1/phk/gzip.html >> >> My question is, wouldn't it be quicker to have both a gzipped and ungzipped >> copy stored in memory, so that this does not need to be changed on the fly? >> Or is the time taken to ungzip so negligible as to make this unnecessary? >> >> Thanks >> Nigel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
