Sensible Performance/Growth Strategies?
igor at sysoev.ru
Thu Aug 5 22:52:15 MSD 2010
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 08:44:46PM +0200, Rainer Duffner wrote:
> Am 05.08.2010 um 18:55 schrieb Igor Sysoev:
> > On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 06:49:21PM +0200, rainer at ultra-secure.de
> > wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 12:24:23PM -0400, Alex Sergeyev wrote:
> >>> varnish relies on OS internals too: it mmap()s a huge file that
> >>> may be larger tens times physical memory and perfomance relies on
> >>> how OS flushes modified pages to a disk and how then OS reads them
> >>> back to memory.
> >>>> I'm not sure about internals of each project and how they work
> >>>> under
> >>>> Linux vs FreeBSD servers. This could be a decision reason too.
> >>> Both Varnish and nginx are developed on FreeBSD.
> >> Recently, we did a test with serving just static files (from a
> >> FreeBSD8.1
> >> VM), a very small data-set.
> >> nginx0.7 was 1.8 times faster than varnish (both mostly untuned).
> >> So, I'd say that OOTB, just serving static files, nginx wins.
> >> Though, I still think that varnish has a place and there are probably
> >> certain situations where it can beat and will nginx.
> > What have you set behind Varnish ?
> Apache-worker-mpm + php (though not used, as everything is static).
> IIRC, I first had no expire-headers on the apache-side and the
> difference was even larger.
> nginx is _very_ impressive.
It's strange, I can not believe that Varnish may be almost two times
slower on cached responses than nginx on static.
More information about the nginx