jjoe

43 ms·

451.
by jjoe 16y ago
Right here. Regards
452.
Mono-state Web servers are so 90's How to deploy your busy Web app(blog.unixy.net)
2 points by jjoe 16y ago|0 comments
453.
Offer HN: Professional startup hosting Nginx, Varnish, Load balance, Sharding
2 points by jjoe 16y ago|1 comments
454.
by jjoe 16y ago
unixy.net doesn't sell DDoS insurance. They're not in the DDoS business at all. Check their portal. Best
455.
by jjoe 16y ago
I don't respond to ad hominem attacks. Let me clear up a few things. Again, the point of the experiment is not to setup the perfect environment for either VM but to subject both Web servers to fair and equal conditions. Whether it is 1GB RA
456.
by jjoe 16y ago
Header manip is very important if one needs to control caching. I'm not sure Nginx has this capability at such granular level. Varnish's VCL excels at this. As explained above, all info has been disclosed on the page in question. It's up to
457.
by jjoe 16y ago
1. All is disclosed in the page. Varnish is indeed mentioned on the page as being the crucial piece that made is all happen. But mea culpa, the title "Apache vs Litespeed" does need the Varnish bit added. I'll correct it shortly. 2. You're
458.
by jjoe 16y ago
Nginx is used as a disk cache and varnish is used as a memory cache. So you're saying that why not scrap nginx and let varnish run the show on the edge nodes? That works just fine too. Keep in mind that the goal of the article is to build a
459.
by jjoe 16y ago
Nginx "has some performance penalty compared to Varnish" The performance penalty comes the number of system calls needed to complete the request. According to the Varnish arch docs, it's 18 syscalls ( http://varnish-cache.org/wiki/Architect
460.
by jjoe 16y ago
I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks; just the factual content of you post(s). I understand that you perceived my posting of the benchmark link to be inappropriate and I agree with you to an extent. It remains to say that the l
461.
by jjoe 16y ago
The above post proposed that Varnish is not needed because Nginx could handle the task well with the best performance. But Nginx is a bit slower than Varnish. It's been shown in benchmarks that Litespeed is a bit faster than Nginx. By induc
462.
by jjoe 16y ago
1 - not necessarily 2 - it depends on app complexity. Most people that read Y need it. 3 - Benchmarks? sure :) http://www.unixy.net/apache-vs-litespeed
463.
by jjoe 16y ago
For part 2, we intend on showing how the CDN can cache dynamic content, not just static files. As a matter of fact, it's just one or two simple changes in Varnish VCL functions. Regards
464.
by jjoe 16y ago
VMs have dropped in price dramatically over the last couple of months. You can find 128MB/256MB nodes for less than $5/mo. You just have to do a bit of digging ;) Regards
465.
by jjoe 16y ago
1) Nginx is a fully fledged Web server and has some performance penalty compared to Varnish. The latter is lightening fast. 2) Nginx is no match for Varnish's VCL for header/cache manipulation Regards