Mike McGrath wrote: > I've been looking at a better proxy solution. I initially pushed back > against varnish because it would complicate the environment, and this will > but since apache isn't cutting it I figured a slow incremental change is > the best approach. So what I'm proposing is this: > > httpd(proxy) -> varnish(proxy) -> haproxy(proxy) -> httpd(app) > > So a couple of reasons why I'm choosing to do design, especially since, in > theory, varnish can completely replace both httpd and haproxy in that > picture. > I do not have all that much positive experience wrt. Varnish's efficiency. Have you researched any other alternatives? I'm reading that the proxy functionality is first and foremost implemented for caching, and second for l/b? In other architecture designs (large or heavily loaded rails deployments for example), the concept of assets is introduced. Would such functionality serve purpose? -- Jeroen _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
