3 ms·
I had created a post here regarding a Varnish plugin we wrote for cPanel over a weekend codeathon (http://www.unixy.net/varnish http://www.unixy.net/varnish). B
by jjoe 16y ago
I had created a post here regarding a Varnish plugin we wrote for cPanel over a weekend codeathon (http://www.unixy.net/varnish http://www.unixy.net/varnish). Based on benchmarks, Varnish+Apache came out ahead of Litespeed. But benchmarks are not always conclusive since user traffic patterns are difficult to reproduce in a benchmark environments.
The feedback we've gotten so far on the plugin is very positive (google if interested). Nginx can do caching but not with the same flexibility as Varnish.
Regards
- ck2 16y agoUm, but varnish is just a cache and so of course it's faster for static content? Or am I missing something? Litespeed can work with php several times faster than apache+php while serving dynamic content (and so can nginx).
- sunkencity 16y agoThe article is about full page caching. How's that different than static content?
- jjoe 16y agoVarnish is good for caching any object; static or dynamic. The plugin we wrote uses Varnish to do a lot of dynamic page caching. Varnish is better at dynamic page caching than Nginx. Litespeed has a caching mechanism too (introduced recently). But I think it requires an enterprise licesense of 2+ CPU. Here are some benchmarks of Apache+Varnish vs Litespeed: http://unixy.net/apache-vs-litespeed http://unixy.net/apache-vs-litespeed Regards
- zepolen 16y agoNot this again...here are the reasons that benchmark sucked: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1593611 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1593611
- ichilton 16y agoSo would you use Varnish over Nginx as a reverse proxy to Apache? What about an Nginx+FastCGI+PHP-FPM stack? - would you run Varnish in front of that?