On 2007/08/31, at 7:04 AM, Nicole wrote:
On 29-Aug-07 My Secret NSA Wiretap Overheard john allspaw Saying :
Varnish shows a lot of promise. I do believe that there's a good
amount of
trash talking in
those comments, especially given that squid would for sure have
been designed
differently if
it set out to be a fast accelerator, not a forward proxy with all
of the
bells and whistles.
Flickr can't use Varnish in its current form, for example, because
object
eviction isn't yet a feature. :)
Hence, we use squid. It's working just fine for us. So in that
case, I'll
take the "1980" design that works,
versus the 2007 design that doesn't. :)
-j
It seems like their trash talking is to try to get people to
switch and try to
garner more funding. Varnish is also not as user friendly as squid.
The lack of documentation is the biggest problem I have. They also
describe it as a HTTP caching reverse proxy, when they don't honour
many parts of HTTP.
The 'trash talk' seems based on their conviction that the OS can
manage VM better than Squid does, with application-specific
knowledge. As long as you don't set your cache_mem too high, you
won't run into the doomsday scenarios they paint...
Now.. if your from flickr.. and you use Squid.. Seems like a big
company like
yours should be making some nice donations.. poke poke.. That would
help squid
get updated :)
Stay tuned.
--
Mark Nottingham mnot@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
