On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
> I've been looking at a better proxy solution. I initially pushed back
> against varnish because it would complicate the environment, and this will
> but since apache isn't cutting it I figured a slow incremental change is
> the best approach. So what I'm proposing is this:
>
> httpd(proxy) -> varnish(proxy) -> haproxy(proxy) -> httpd(app)
>
> So a couple of reasons why I'm choosing to do design, especially since, in
> theory, varnish can completely replace both httpd and haproxy in that
> picture.
>
I do not have all that much positive experience wrt. Varnish's efficiency.
Have you researched any other alternatives?
Define efficiency, load times, disk space, cpu usage?
I'm reading that the proxy functionality is first and foremost
implemented for
caching, and second for l/b?
Actually I'd reverse that, first and foremost for load balancing and
redundancy. Next about caching + geo location.
In other architecture designs (large or heavily loaded rails
deployments for
example), the concept of assets is introduced. Would such functionality serve
purpose?
I've not used assets before, what's the scoop?
-Mike