3 ms·

varnish is a lot faster!

• SwellJoe 18y ago
  Many things are faster...but Squid does an awful lot more. C is faster than Ruby, but you're not suggesting building their apps in C. Why not? Because capabilities matter, too.
• wmf 18y ago
  Yeah. But it looks like they have Nginx in front of Squid, so Nginx would still be a bottleneck if they used Varnish. It seems like the cache ought to be at the front of the stack.
  • kovyrin 18y ago
    Why would nginx be a bottleneck? and What kind of bottleneck do you mean?
    • wmf 18y ago
      When nginx proxies a request to Varnish, the response probably gets copied at least twice. If you had Varnish in front it would be zero-copy.
• kovyrin 18y ago
  Actually squid is fast enough for us :-) And, as I already pointed out in comments to the post: Before choosing Squid 3.0 I've discussed this with percona guys (which I really trust since I worked there quite a while) and they shared with my some really weird stories from their experience (on boardreader.com) with Varnish (constant memory leaks, crashes, etc). So, I decided to go with Squid and pretty happy about the result so far.