On 2007/07/02, at 14:59, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > André Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 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? > > Isn't that really the same question? Either you run Varnish in > front of > Perlbal on the Perlbal servers, or you run it in front of Apache on > the > Apache servers. >
Well... You can run varnish on the Perlbal servers and Perbal can still be in front of Varnish. But since varnish doesn't do load balancing it seems that it's better to let Perlbal handle the request first. I would prefer to run Varnish on the Perlbal machines because they have 4 processors and lots of RAM, largely unused by perlbal. The apache machines on the other hand.... :) Again, if Varnish can't select a backend from a pool to satisfy cache misses then I may just as well have one Varnish for each apache and run them on the same machine... We'll see. >> Perlbal is probably better at load-balancing since it is it's core >> function, no? > > Considering that Varnish doesn't do load balancing at all (yet), I > would > concur that Perlbal is probably better at it :) > Ok, got it. :) Thanks again, André _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc