cache empties itself?
Michael S. Fischer
michael at dynamine.net
Fri Apr 4 11:50:51 CEST 2008
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ricardo Newbery <ric at digitalmarbles.com> wrote:
> Well, first of all you're setting up a false dichotomy. Not everything
> fits neatly into your apparent definitions of dynamic versus static. Your
> definitions appear to exclude the use case where you have cacheable content
> that is subject to change at unpredictable intervals but which is otherwise
> fairly "static" for some length of time.
In my experience, you almost never need a caching proxy for this
purpose. Most modern web servers are perfectly capable of serving
static content at wire speed. Moreover, if your origin servers have a
reasonable amount of RAM and the working set size is relatively small,
the static objects are already likely to be in the buffer cache. In a
scenario such as this, having caching proxies upstream for these sorts
of objects can actually be *worse* in terms of performance -- consider
the wasted time processing a cache miss for content that's already
cached downstream.
Best regards,
--Michael
More information about the varnish-misc
mailing list