Keep-Alive acceleration, is this possible?

Hi there, On our platform we have had to disable Keep-Alive support on our Apache/FastCGI/PHP setup because it holds open too many backend processes under load even with KeepAliveTimeout set low. I am looking at Varnish as a web accelerator (it looks great!), and I wonder if it is possible to

Re: Keep-Alive acceleration, is this possible?

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> I was thinking it might be possible to strip out the "Connection: Close" >> header returned by Apache, [...] > > You don't need to do anything. > > "Connection:" is a hop-by-hop header, so Varnish already deletes it before > sending the reply to the client Perfect!

Mac connection problem with Varnish 2.0-rc1

Hi there, A client using Mac version of Safari complains of intermittent errors "kCFErrorDomainCFNetwork error 302", perhaps every other page, on dynamically generated pages. This is a stock install of varnish-2.0-rc1, with default.vcl and default configuration values. Everything works perfect

Re: Ticket #250 (POST error when using Opera)

Hi there Just to update you on my experience with Varnish 1.1.2, I had exactly the same problem as reported by the user on this ticket: http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/ticket/250 In my case, the cause of the problem after some analysis of the log files was that the "Connection-Length" head

Re: Ticket #250 (POST error when using Opera)

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Loman writes: >> Hi there >> >> Just to update you on my experience with Varnish 1.1.2, [...] > > At this point we _really_ urge everybody to upgrade to Varnish 2.0. > > The release candida

Re: Ticket #250 (POST error when using Opera)

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Loman writes: > >> I started on Varnish 2.0-rc1, which was 99% great, but we experienced a >> problem which was unfortunately a show-stopper. See my post on the 9th >> October, "Mac connection p

Re: Varnish keep-alive problem

Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > | Varnish is a very good web accelerator, and i find it support KeepAlive. > | The default keep-alive is on. I want to turn off the keep-alive, but i > don't know how to do it. > | Please tell me how to turn off the keep-alive. > > I don't believe that's possible out of

Re: Weird log entries

Alecs Henry wrote: > Those are coupled with: > 127.0.0.1 - - [09/Feb/2009:19:39:46 +] "(null) (null) (null)" 200 > 39678 "-" "-" > I can see an object in the page that has that size (image) -- through > firebug, but the object didn't load into the browser until I hit reload. I've seen log e

Theoretical connections/second limit using Varnish

Hi there, Has anyone come to a satisfactory solution to the issue of running out of local port numbers when Varnish makes a connection to the backend server? Under Linux, my understanding is the number of available port numbers can be increased to a maximum of 64511 by setting /proc/sys/net/ip

Re: Theoretical connections/second limit using Varnish

Michael S. Fischer wrote: > On Apr 29, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> In message <49f87de4.3040...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes: >> >>> Has Varnish got a solution to this problem which does not involve >>> time-wait recycling? One thi

Re: Theoretical connections/second limit using Varnish

Michael S. Fischer wrote: >> I've done that for a specific reason relating to backend PHP processes. > > I don't dispute your reasoning; my employer does this as well. > KeepAlive with Apache/PHP can be a recipe for resource starvation on > your origin servers. Hi Michael, Precisely, we only

Re: Theoretical connections/second limit using Varnish

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <49f9bf57.4020...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes: > >> Precisely, we only have perhaps 50 PHP children serving requests, so if >> these are kept open to serve idle keep-alive connections, that severely >> limits the numbers o

Re: Theoretical connections/second limit using Varnish

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <49fab28f.2040...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes: >> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> Which way round do you mean? >> >> Apache specifies Keep-Alive in seconds, and my sites will certainly die >> if I set it to even 1

Apache DoS - is Varnish affected?

I would guess that Varnish isn't affected by this, but does anyone know for sure? Does Varnish protect against this attack in all cases if you have Apache as your backend? http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=6601 Many thanks, Nick. ___ varnish-mi

Re: Apache DoS - is Varnish affected?

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <4a3ba393.3010...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes: > >> I would guess that Varnish isn't affected by this, but does anyone know >> for sure? Does Varnish protect against this attack in all cases if you >> have

Re: Dropped connections with tcp_tw_recycle=1

Hi Sven, I don't know the basis precise for it, but I can vouch for the fact that tcp_tw_recycle is incompatible with NAT on the server side. I would guess it is because the NAT gateway keeps a connection tracking list and is unhappy that the webserver is trying to reuse the same ip:port hash