"Michael S. Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think the default timeout on backends connection may be a little > > short, though. > I assume this is the thread_pool_timeout parameter?
No, that's how long an idle worker thread is kept alive. I don't think the backend timeout is configurable, I think it's hardocded to five seconds. > I'm dealing with a situation where the working set of cacheable > responses is larger than the RAM size of a particular Varnish > instance. (I don't want to go to disk because it will incur at least > a 10ms penalty.) I also want to maximize the hit ratio. My knee-jerk reaction would be "add more RAM, or add more servers" > One good way to do this is to put a pass-only Varnish instance (i.e., > a content switch) in front of a set of intermediate backends (Varnish > caching proxies), each of which is assigned to cache a subset of the > possible URI namespace. > > However, in order to do this, the content switch must make consistent > decisions about which cache to direct the incoming requests to. One > good way of doing that is implementing a hash function H(U) -> V, > where U is the request URI, and V is the intermediate-level proxy. That's actually a pretty good idea... Could you open a ticket for it? DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav Senior Software Developer Linpro AS - www.linpro.no _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
