4 ms·
In my own use and benchmarks I have seen seen Varnish is faster than Nginx for full-page caching. Varnish with ESI will be slower of course. I think ESI is bett
by megaman821 15y ago
In my own use and benchmarks I have seen seen Varnish is faster than Nginx for full-page caching. Varnish with ESI will be slower of course. I think ESI is better for Facebook levels of personalization for light personalization ('Welcome, Bob!') using a cookies/javascript is better since it allows you to use full page caching again.
- klaruz 15y agoI agree, something seems wrong with that test. Varnish performance should not top out with the exact same performance no matter the concurrency. Here's an older article that shows with some very basic changes you can get 27k/s on an old single core machine: http://kristianlyng.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/high-end-varnish-tuning/ http://kristianlyng.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/high-end-varnis...
- todsul 15y agoIt's a totally different architecture. It's adding another layer. Why isn't it conceivable that adding this overhead would reduce speed? Remember, I'm not comparing a Varnish cache to an un-cached site. I'm comparing cache vs cache. Nginx serves static files very quickly. And cached files, in this case, are static. Also, these are single-server tests. Everything changes when you start talking about very large websites.
- todsul 15y agoHow can that be? If Nginx serves static files much faster, and full page caching is just a static file, how can Varnish be faster?