Hi All.
Apologies for not being able to respond to my own problems ;)
I would personally like to give the latest SVN version a try.
I had encountered a situation where the /tmp was mounted noexec and
varnish failed to load.
This made me aware that Varnish uses /tmp to keep the compiled VCL.
I
Anup Shukla [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anup, what version are you running?
I am running version 1.0.4 Is that too old to use? If so, i will
update it immediately.
No, 1.0.4 should be fine, but I'm not aware of any bugs in it that might
cause the
ADOFMS Admin, SteveOC [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sounds like Dag's latest code (which drops items from cache on a LRU
scheme as memory fills up) is more likely to solve your problems longer
term. I assume that comes out first in SVN, so thats another good reason
to try the SVN release.
I
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 08:54:24AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Anup Shukla [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anup, what version are you running?
I am running version 1.0.4 Is that too old to use? If so, i will
update it immediately.
No, 1.0.4
Trond Michelsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're running Varnish 1.0.3, so this might not be related, but we've
also run into a bug that causes varnish to die.
1.0.3 has numerous known bugs...
In our setup, varnish is prone to crash if /tmp is cleaned up (we had
a process that removed all
Anup Shukla wrote:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Still, only the child should die, the parent should automatically
restart it. He says he has to restart it manually, which worries me...
Anup, what version are you running?
DES
I am running version 1.0.4
Is that too old to
I am running version 1.0.4
Is that too old to use?
If so, i will update it immediately.
Sorry for missing out on the release date. It is version 1.0.4 released
on May 20, 2007.
hmm ...
I am running 1.0.4 as well, but I am building mine from the SVN
repository rather than
Hi All,
We have been running varnish for over a month on our production servers now.
We are using the default configuration with a small change, that is to
cache request with Cookies.
We have a number of web servers behind a load balancer, each web server
running varnish + apache.
I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Anup Shukla writes:
I understand that running both services on the same server is probably a
bad idea, but due to time constraints i had no option but to go ahead
with the current setup.
It is not an obviously bad idea, and in many cases it is likely to
work quite
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Anup Shukla writes:
I understand that running both services on the same server is probably a
bad idea, but due to time constraints i had no option but to go ahead
with the current setup.
It is not an obviously bad idea, and
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Anup Shukla writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I have put the cache file (or whatever its called as) under /cache/varnish
the parameters are -s
file,/cache/varnish/varnish_storage.bin,2G
Disk space should not be a problem as there is plenty
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Anup Shukla writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I have put the cache file (or whatever its called as) under /cache/varnish
the parameters are -s
file,/cache/varnish/varnish_storage.bin,2G
Disk space
12 matches
Mail list logo
