On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:31, Stein Ove Rosseland <so.rosseland@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 The site I was caching is long since dead, and therefore, the caching system is also removed. Darren L. VanBuren ===================== http://theoks.net/ _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
