Comments on: Benchmark Caching of Varnish and Squid http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html Keep It Simple Stupid Secure Scalable Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:22:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: BotchagalupeMarks for August 12th - 19:14 | IT Management and Cloud Blog http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html/comment-page-1#comment-4882 BotchagalupeMarks for August 12th - 19:14 | IT Management and Cloud Blog Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:30:30 +0000 http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html#comment-4882 [...] Benchmark Caching of Varnish and Squid – IScale - Varnish can cache files immediately. I found this while comparing the fetching of 10MB files. Varnish just request the nginx server for the file only once, but Squid will requests them for about 10 times of varnish does. [...] [...] Benchmark Caching of Varnish and Squid – IScale – Varnish can cache files immediately. I found this while comparing the fetching of 10MB files. Varnish just request the nginx server for the file only once, but Squid will requests them for about 10 times of varnish does. [...]

]]> By: cowyn http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html/comment-page-1#comment-99 cowyn Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:38:49 +0000 http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html#comment-99 <blockquote cite="comment-98"> <strong><a href="#comment-98" rel="nofollow">Enzo</a></strong>: The odd thing when I benchmarked Lighttpd, Lighttpd + Squid, and Lighttpd + Varnish, Lighttpd all by itself turned out to be faster than either reverse proxy plus Lighttpd. I was benchmarking with ab, not sure if that made any difference. I wasn’t expecting lighttpd by itself to be faster though. </blockquote> Really? Never heard before. It's appreciate if you could give your benchmark results(maybe a link?). Although most benchmark results is just for *reference*, which is not from real life. BTW: I just have a *feel* that Nginx is faster than Lighttpd in production, according to my experience.

Enzo:
The odd thing when I benchmarked Lighttpd, Lighttpd + Squid, and Lighttpd + Varnish, Lighttpd all by itself turned out to be faster than either reverse proxy plus Lighttpd. I was benchmarking with ab, not sure if that made any difference.

I wasn’t expecting lighttpd by itself to be faster though.

Really? Never heard before.
It’s appreciate if you could give your benchmark results(maybe a link?). Although most benchmark results is just for *reference*, which is not from real life.

BTW: I just have a *feel* that Nginx is faster than Lighttpd in production, according to my experience.

]]> By: Enzo http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html/comment-page-1#comment-98 Enzo Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:46:29 +0000 http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html#comment-98 The odd thing when I benchmarked Lighttpd, Lighttpd + Squid, and Lighttpd + Varnish, Lighttpd all by itself turned out to be faster than either reverse proxy plus Lighttpd. I was benchmarking with ab, not sure if that made any difference. I wasn't expecting lighttpd by itself to be faster though. The odd thing when I benchmarked Lighttpd, Lighttpd + Squid, and Lighttpd + Varnish, Lighttpd all by itself turned out to be faster than either reverse proxy plus Lighttpd. I was benchmarking with ab, not sure if that made any difference.

I wasn’t expecting lighttpd by itself to be faster though.

]]> By: IScale http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html/comment-page-1#comment-57 IScale Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:06:37 +0000 http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html#comment-57 <strong>Benchmark Caching of Varnish and Squid Again...</strong> About two weeks ago, I did a simple benchmark on varnish and squid, and wrote this Benchmark Caching of Varnish and Squid post. Today Willy Tarreau gave me some advise. So I took a short time re-ran this benchmark. Here follows the detail. platform Eve... Benchmark Caching of Varnish and Squid Again…

About two weeks ago, I did a simple benchmark on varnish and squid, and wrote this Benchmark Caching of Varnish and Squid post.
Today Willy Tarreau gave me some advise. So I took a short time re-ran this benchmark. Here follows the detail.
platform
Eve…

]]> By: cowyn http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html/comment-page-1#comment-56 cowyn Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:31:36 +0000 http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html#comment-56 Wow Willy, Yeah, you're right, that's a point. The ethernet controller of the proxy server is a bottleneck. I'm not satisfied with this benchmark result. I'll re-run when I've got time. Thanks for your advise, and your great HAProxy. :-) Wow Willy,
Yeah, you’re right, that’s a point. The ethernet controller of the proxy server is a bottleneck.
I’m not satisfied with this benchmark result. I’ll re-run when I’ve got time.
Thanks for your advise, and your great HAProxy. :-)

]]> By: Willy Tarreau http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html/comment-page-1#comment-55 Willy Tarreau Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:16:56 +0000 http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/03/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid.html#comment-55 Hey, you have saturated your 100 Mbps network, your files were too big. You should retry either with Gigabit NICs, or with smaller files (far below 10 kB) to see how each proxy performs. I suspect that they did not eat much CPU either during the test. Willy Hey, you have saturated your 100 Mbps network, your files were too
big. You should retry either with Gigabit NICs, or with smaller files (far
below 10 kB) to see how each proxy performs. I suspect that they did
not eat much CPU either during the test.

Willy

]]>