[BlueOnyx:11881] Re: Varnish Cache

[jeffrey Pellin - PX2]

FWIW I'm going to throw my three pennyworth into this. 

Chris
really helped us identify the issue with a badly performing site last
year (2012). 

He's a hosting god - and knows his stuff in a commercial
way ( as well as having the theoretical at this fingertips). 

Give him
a good listen. 

HNY 

Jeffrey 

---

 JEFFREY PELLIN
 Director


JEFFREY PELLIN CONSULTANCY LTD [1] WORK: 01692 558226
 MOBILE: 07768
451738 
 EMAIL: jeffrey at pellin.co.uk [2]

 		See who we know in common
[3]

On 02.01.2013 16:39, Chris Gebhardt - VIRTBIZ Internet wrote: 

>
On 1/1/2013 10:57 PM, Joseph Chambers wrote:
> 
>> Hello, I want to run
Varnish for available to all of my sites on the server. 1) How do I get
it to start up if I ever reboot my server. For example; I know that I am
running a non-standard implementation of ProFTPd in order to support TLS
(FTP over SSL instead of FTPS which is natively supported). Therefore,
service will fail on reboot. is this something I will worry about for
Varnish? 2) How do I install it without breaking BluOynx? Any advice? I
know how to shell in and install scripts but I'm not as smart as anyone
reading this.
> 
> Joseph,
> Welcome to the BX list.
> 
> From my
cursory look, it does appear that Varnish can be installed 
> without
extreme system modifications. However, having it installed, 
> and
properly configuring it to do what you want it to do are two 
>
different issues entirely.
> 
> Not all sites are created equally. There
are static sites, dynamic 
> sites, and of course some dynamic sites are
more dynamic than others. 
> In addition, sessions, cookies and so forth
must be taken into account. 
> Dirk made a nice suggestion regarding the
possibility of having a 3rd 
> party application that would enable the
cache on a site by site basis. 
> However, since each site needs to be
treated differently, it does seem 
> to me that a great deal of
configuration would need to be done for each 
> site.
> 
> IMHO, I'm
just not sure it's worth the effort. In the real world, for 
> most
sites, I'm doubtful that this is the best way to address performance.
>

> We've discussed offlist some concerns you have with a particular
site, 
> and I'm guessing that the relatively poor performance of that
site is 
> the reason you would consider a cache such as Varnish. As
mentioned 
> offlist, there are other concerns with that particular site
(enormous 
> images up to a few-hundred kilobytes each being the
low-hanging fruit) I 
> would recommend tackling first. The best
accelerator or cache system 
> will not fix a poorly constructed site. I
do not mention this in order 
> to be contrary or to seem disrespectful.
But for my money and/or time, 
> I'd rather be certain that the
foundation is as solid as possible before 
> throwing add-ons and
extensions on top.
> 
> HTH,
 

Links:
------
[1]
http://www.quick-websites.co.uk
[2] mailto:jeffrey at pellin.co.uk
[3]
http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/53425140/?hs=false|+|amp|+|tok=13wzr5NHSChl41
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.blueonyx.it/pipermail/blueonyx/attachments/20130102/86ea280f/attachment.html>