> No, it isn't. That's very much the point. They have spent all this time realizing that doing it wrong is bad and rewriting it to actually work. Troll much? N

> No, it isn't. That's very much the point. They have spent all this time realizing that doing it wrong is bad and rewriting it to actually work. Troll much? Nope. That is not accurate at all. Varnish, with it's current storage engines manages to power sites such as Wikipedia and NYT. This announcement was not about that, it was about enabling caching of really large datasets. Datasets that run in the hundreds of terabytes. And we did tens of migrations from Squid -> Varnish. Usually it involved scaling down the number of servers to 1/6 whilst seeing a massive decrease in response time. So it kind of surprising that your findings are completely different and somewhat disappointing that you cannot back them up.