On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Darren VanBuren <onekopaka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:36, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Mike McGrath wrote: >>> 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? If the content you are trying to cache are uncacheable, it really doesnt matter what tech you use. But if it is cacheable, varnish does the job better than any other alternative out there. > Varnish can be told not to use memory for caching, and that's how I've > used it, 1GB doesn't go a long way when you've got 64-bit Apache > HTTPd. It ends up in virtual memory anyhow, serving from disk is too slow. You probably have graphs showing the usage today? Cheers Stein Ove Rosseland _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
