On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > 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? > Define efficiency, load times, disk space, cpu usage? > I'm reading that the proxy functionality is first and foremost implemented for > caching, and second for l/b? > Actually I'd reverse that, first and foremost for load balancing and redundancy. Next about caching + geo location. > In other architecture designs (large or heavily loaded rails deployments for > example), the concept of assets is introduced. Would such functionality serve > purpose? > I've not used assets before, what's the scoop? -Mike _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
