nCache, Varnish Performance

Hi,

Anybody has done Performance between nCache, Varnish and Nginx’s
proxy_cache?

Is nCache and Varnish far better than proxy_cache?

rgds,
Prince

Posted at Nginx Forum:
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,4979,46508#msg-46508

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:57 PM, princeap [email protected] wrote:


nginx mailing list
[email protected]
http://nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx

Hello,

Better is subjective and depends on your needs.

For me, proxy_cache is better than either ncache or varnish because it
does not require anything aside from standard nginx.

Thanks,
Merlin

Hi,

Is nCache and Varnish far better than proxy_cache?

From http://code.google.com/p/ncache/:
“NCache is now in nginx core , you can use it as nginx proxy cache.”

I don’t use Varnish, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t far better.
But the answer really depends on your exact use-case.

Best regards,
Piotr S. < [email protected] >

Is xCache something different all together? I know it’s for caching php
but
is it recommended to use nCache, proxy_cache, or Varnish if you’re
already
using xCahce?

2010/1/28 AMP Admin [email protected]:

Is xCache something different all together? I know it’s for caching php but
is it recommended to use nCache, proxy_cache, or Varnish if you’re already
using xCahce?

definitely ! xcache cache only PHP opcodes. PHP code is still executed
for each page. front end caches (proxy_pass, ncache, …) makes
dynamic requests (php) into static ones (files). It’s all different
and complementary.

++ Jerome

My 2c to add - we run a CDN and serve all content for http through
nginx servers. I experimented with varnish as an upstream and
downstream cache to nginx for about a week on some test nodes when we
were experiencing high load (our http traffic is all media assets and
no html or video/audio) and noticed no measurable benefit (i.e.
numbers that would justify deploying it) despite tuning varnish in
various caching modes/rulesets. In fact in a few configurations I
noticed a performance hit on serving traffic.

HTH

Cheers
Kon

Thank you! I will do some research now and maybe get even better
performance!

Hello!

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:00:38PM +0100, Piotr S. wrote:

Hi,

Is nCache and Varnish far better than proxy_cache?

From http://code.google.com/p/ncache/:
“NCache is now in nginx core , you can use it as nginx proxy cache.”

Just for the record: this statement isn’t true as no parts of
ncache is in nginx core AFAIK; proxy_cache is completely different
thing.

The one from the same page which is probably true is that “NCache is
out of maintaince”.

Maxim D.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM, princeap [email protected] wrote:

Hi,

Anybody has done Performance between nCache, Varnish and Nginx’s proxy_cache?

Is nCache and Varnish far better than proxy_cache?

I would say it likely doesn’t matter if your cache is on a dedicated
boxes… any of those (or even Squid) will likely be able to fill a
Gigabit pipe with static content assuming they have enough RAM and are
not disk-bound.

If you are already familiar with nginx, I would stick with proxy_cache
(although you might have to do some futzing with cache_key settings
and gzip if your upstreams are doing compression, and watch out for
the If-None-Match bug mentioned elsewhere on this list).


RPM

Hi Maxim,

Just for the record: this statement isn’t true as no parts of
ncache is in nginx core AFAIK; proxy_cache is completely different
thing.

Thanks for claryfing that.

Best regards,
Piotr S. < [email protected] >

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:57 AM, princeap [email protected] wrote:

Anybody has done Performance between nCache, Varnish and Nginx’s
proxy_cache?

Is nCache and Varnish far better than proxy_cache?

I have no performance stats, but I really like varnish configuration
language because It’s very powerful and unsurprising. But the added
hassle
of running one more process is justified only if you have complex
rewriting
logic… IMHO

Also, if you really must squeeze the maximum performance out of your
system,
you may have to benchmark the available solutions with real usage data,
as
perfomance may vary wrt file sizes, cache hit ratio, per user bandwidth
and
latency etc…

Regards

On 1/29/10 4:46 AM, “Luca De Marinis” [email protected] wrote:

I have no performance stats, but I really like varnish configuration language
because It’s very powerful and unsurprising. But the added hassle of running
one more process is justified only if you have complex rewriting logic… IMHO

I’m working on getting Lua into nginx to just this. I think a few
others
are as well. We do this in Apache and it has been very helpful.


Brian A.

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs