----- André Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, I'll try it both ways to test. > > And regarding my other question... Should Perlbal handle the request > > first, and pass it to some varnish process or should varnish process > > the request first and send only the misses to PerlBal+Apache? > > Perlbal is probably better at load-balancing since it is it's core > function, no? > > Thanks for your help, > André
André, If we can assume one of the reasons you want to use Perlbal is to achieve some sort of failover capability, I would say place Perlbal in front of Varnish. If you have another provision to handle that and you only want to improve performance I would say it depends on your application really. I completely agree with DES though that implementing Varnish locally on the same box as apache is indeed the path of least configuration and fewest changes :P From what I have read on Perlbal it should be suited for placement in front of a cache such as varnish. Could I ask what your experience with Perlbal is? Is it a nice loadbalancer? How does your setup with it look like? What kind of traffice do you see? I gather the Varnish project is looking to implement some sort of basic load balancing capabilities into Varnish at some point in time. Regards -- Denis Braekhus - Teknisk Ansvarlig ABC Startsiden AS http://www.startsiden.no _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
