Hi Jarry, I personally prefer B myself, even with Pound. I used to use Pound but have since switched to nginx as my front end to handle ssl, ipv6, custom headers, virtual hosts, etc. I ran into issues with Pound at one point and have been very pleased with nginx and it gives me more flexibility.
Jason > On May 27, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Jarry <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm quite new to varnish and http(s) caching, but I'd like to set up > caching for my apache webserver (running a few web-sites with Drupal). > I searched google for some info and found basically two possibilities: > _____________________________________ > > A): Varnish listening on the port 80/http (caching Apache, running on > 8080), and Pound listening only on the port 443/https (after https- > termination forwarding traffic to Varnish). > > -> Varnish(public_IP:80) -> Apache(lo:8080) > ^ > | > -> Pound(public_IP:443) > _____________________________________ > > B): Pound listening on both 80/http and 443/https ports. Both http > (directly) and https (after termination) traffic is forwarded to > Varnish, and further to Apache. > > -> Pound(public_IP:80,443) -> Varnish(lo:8008) -> Apache(lo:8080) > _____________________________________ > > I tested both of these configurations, both of them seem to work > (sort of, there are certain specific problems with both set-ups). > But I still can not decide: which set-up is better, and why? > > Jarry > > -- > _______________________________________________________________ > This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! > Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted. > > _______________________________________________ > varnish-misc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
