<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Benchmark Caching of Varnish and Squid Again</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html</link>
	<description>Keep It Simple Stupid Secure Scalable</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:22:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Durability, Scalability, Availability &#183;</title>
		<link>http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html/comment-page-1#comment-5326</link>
		<dc:creator>Durability, Scalability, Availability &#183;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:25:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dotimes.com/iscale/?p=40#comment-5326</guid>
		<description>[...] fastest, which one is easier to setup or integrate with legacy apps etc. I&#8217;m certainly NOT trying to get into that! In fact I will skirt the issue entirely saying this: when the features are right [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] fastest, which one is easier to setup or integrate with legacy apps etc. I&#8217;m certainly NOT trying to get into that! In fact I will skirt the issue entirely saying this: when the features are right [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Varnish vs Squid &#171; /home/freinel/</title>
		<link>http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html/comment-page-1#comment-5322</link>
		<dc:creator>Varnish vs Squid &#171; /home/freinel/</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:29:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dotimes.com/iscale/?p=40#comment-5322</guid>
		<description>[...] it against Squid yet on my own, I suppose this challenge might be defeating for Squid, according to what other people say. What I noticed immediately was that the configuration is quite straight forward and very flexible. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] it against Squid yet on my own, I suppose this challenge might be defeating for Squid, according to what other people say. What I noticed immediately was that the configuration is quite straight forward and very flexible. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cowyn</title>
		<link>http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html/comment-page-1#comment-4983</link>
		<dc:creator>cowyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dotimes.com/iscale/?p=40#comment-4983</guid>
		<description>@Bryan Beautiful test, waiting for the part2. Thanks for share:-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Bryan Beautiful test, waiting for the part2. Thanks for share:-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bryan Migliorisi</title>
		<link>http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html/comment-page-1#comment-4981</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryan Migliorisi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dotimes.com/iscale/?p=40#comment-4981</guid>
		<description>Good stuff - I have also done some benchmarking of my own on Squid and Varnish.  My results found that Varnish serves up content much faster than Squid does.  My tests really test the throughput of the two applications.

http://deserialized.com/reverse-proxy-performance-varnish-vs-squid-part-1/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good stuff &#8211; I have also done some benchmarking of my own on Squid and Varnish.  My results found that Varnish serves up content much faster than Squid does.  My tests really test the throughput of the two applications.</p>
<p><a href="http://deserialized.com/reverse-proxy-performance-varnish-vs-squid-part-1/" rel="nofollow">http://deserialized.com/reverse-proxy-performance-varnish-vs-squid-part-1/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cowyn</title>
		<link>http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html/comment-page-1#comment-4861</link>
		<dc:creator>cowyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2009 09:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dotimes.com/iscale/?p=40#comment-4861</guid>
		<description>@Demaray I&#039;m not using 2.7 at that time. Anyway, thanks for your advice, and your great article.

@cowboydeals Thank you guy!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Demaray I&#8217;m not using 2.7 at that time. Anyway, thanks for your advice, and your great article.</p>
<p>@cowboydeals Thank you guy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cowboydeals</title>
		<link>http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html/comment-page-1#comment-4832</link>
		<dc:creator>cowboydeals</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dotimes.com/iscale/?p=40#comment-4832</guid>
		<description>great article, will recommend to friends  rep</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>great article, will recommend to friends  rep</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Demaray</title>
		<link>http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html/comment-page-1#comment-4822</link>
		<dc:creator>Demaray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:03:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dotimes.com/iscale/?p=40#comment-4822</guid>
		<description>Just a word of caution: the current version of WordPress is 2.8.2 and it seems you still have 2.7.something. There was a significant security fix in 2.8.1 so you may want to upgrade sooner rather than later. Here is a quick upgrade quide that may be helpful: http://www.krazyworks.com/?p=812</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a word of caution: the current version of WordPress is 2.8.2 and it seems you still have 2.7.something. There was a significant security fix in 2.8.1 so you may want to upgrade sooner rather than later. Here is a quick upgrade quide that may be helpful: <a href="http://www.krazyworks.com/?p=812" rel="nofollow">http://www.krazyworks.com/?p=812</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cowyn</title>
		<link>http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html/comment-page-1#comment-2414</link>
		<dc:creator>cowyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:58:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dotimes.com/iscale/?p=40#comment-2414</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote cite=&quot;comment-2389&quot;&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-2389&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jauder Ho&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: Could you post your configs for varnish and squid? That would be useful to know. Thanks.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Hi Jauder,

As this benchmark was taken one year ago, I cannot find the configurations. Sorry :-(</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote cite="comment-2389"><p>
<strong><a href="#comment-2389" rel="nofollow">Jauder Ho</a></strong>: Could you post your configs for varnish and squid? That would be useful to know. Thanks.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Hi Jauder,</p>
<p>As this benchmark was taken one year ago, I cannot find the configurations. Sorry :-(</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jauder Ho</title>
		<link>http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html/comment-page-1#comment-2389</link>
		<dc:creator>Jauder Ho</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:35:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dotimes.com/iscale/?p=40#comment-2389</guid>
		<description>Could you post your configs for varnish and squid? That would be useful to know. Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could you post your configs for varnish and squid? That would be useful to know. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cowyn</title>
		<link>http://dotimes.com/iscale/2008/04/benchmark-caching-of-varnish-and-squid-again.html/comment-page-1#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>cowyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:37:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dotimes.com/iscale/?p=40#comment-68</guid>
		<description>Hi Willy,
Yeah, this time the result is much better :-)
We now have one project run varnish, I think it&#039;s a better choice.
IMHO, there&#039;s no doubt that varnish is more powerful by reading its &lt;a href=&quot;http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/ArchitectNotes&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;architecture notes&lt;/a&gt;.
Thanks again for your time, Willy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Willy,<br />
Yeah, this time the result is much better :-)<br />
We now have one project run varnish, I think it&#8217;s a better choice.<br />
IMHO, there&#8217;s no doubt that varnish is more powerful by reading its <a href="http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/ArchitectNotes" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">architecture notes</a>.<br />
Thanks again for your time, Willy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
