Results 1 to 14 of 14
Thread: Apache vs Varnish
-
10-06-2011, 05:40 PM #1
Apache vs Varnish
http://loadimpact.com/result/varnish...c8e8c87a04bc81
http://loadimpact.com/result/apache....e867de28b2989e
Apache on its own really is bad.HostXNow - Shared Web Hosting | Semi Dedicated Hosting | Enterprise Reseller Hosting | VPS Hosting
-
10-06-2011, 05:42 PM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Buffalo, NY
- Posts
- 1,501
Varnish is a reverse proxy / caching proxy. It's not a web server / a fair comparison in the slightest.
Just to elaborate: it's caching stuff *after* it's been processed and things of that nature*. Hence the drastic differences in speed.
* Varnish is super spiffy and highly recommended, albeit a bit confusing at times if you try to get fancy (yay dynamic content in midst of static cached content).█ Cody R.
█ Hawk Host Inc. Proudly Serving websites since 2004.
█ Official Let's Encrypt Sponsor
-
10-06-2011, 05:44 PM #3HostXNow - Shared Web Hosting | Semi Dedicated Hosting | Enterprise Reseller Hosting | VPS Hosting
-
10-06-2011, 06:53 PM #4
As I just mentioned in another thread ... I would say only use Varnish if you have a lot of users on your site as that's where Varnish comes in, but it turns out Varnish even helps with low site activity too.
In the tests above, Varnish loads the site at 819 milliseconds for first 10 clients, where as Apache loads the site at 1.46 seconds, and the fact that Varnish page load time gets faster as more clients are loaded is just a bonus.HostXNow - Shared Web Hosting | Semi Dedicated Hosting | Enterprise Reseller Hosting | VPS Hosting
-
10-06-2011, 06:58 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Posts
- 10,629
Varnish + LiteSpeed + Apache + eAccelerator + xCache = One big conspiracy to many.
Whatever works for an individual works, testing is ultimately going to vary under so many dominating factors - I really hate replying to these threads they are too common and all they end up in are debates! Meh!
-
10-06-2011, 07:06 PM #6
I don't know about that. The tests look pretty good to me.
Exact same content on each dedicated server (the server used for Apache test site even has a better spec) and the LoadImpact site can be trusted. They charge 9$ day or 279$ month for paid testing services. I doubt they'd charge that kind of money and developers/testers would be upgrading if the service wasn't accurate enough.
Loadimpact looks good to me.HostXNow - Shared Web Hosting | Semi Dedicated Hosting | Enterprise Reseller Hosting | VPS Hosting
-
10-06-2011, 11:33 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Posts
- 797
has the apache been tuned ?
Looking for shared or reseller or VPS Hosting ?
Try our service at https://www.sosys.net!
Singapore - Indonesia - Malaysia
-
10-07-2011, 12:25 AM #8█ • UnderHost.com • Offshore Hosting Solutions and USA/Canadian based servers.
█ • 24/7 Rapid Support / 99.9% Uptime Guarantee / Shared / Cloud / VPS / Dedicated Servers
█ • Managed OnApp Cloud • USA Cloud Virtual Datacenter - Dedicated and Scalable Resources
█ • Hong Kong - Netherlands - Canada - Caribbean - United States - Russia •
-
10-07-2011, 12:28 AM #9Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Location
- /home/kristoffer
- Posts
- 3,251
The Litespeed (OS + caching) and Apache (OS) + Varnish (caching) would be a great test I think! I'm looking forward for it
-
10-07-2011, 12:28 AM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Posts
- 10,629
Mind you, these are being done via a third-party so the results may not even be accurate. It is better with internal testing and people should not hold tests so heavily on other webservers.
██ l Dedigeeks • Shared • Wordpress • Dedicated • Established 2006
██ l Leading AUSTRALIAN Hosting Provider • Sydney & Melbourne Datacentres
██ l cPanel/WHM • R1Soft Backups • 24/7/365 Support • SMS Hosting Alerts*
██ l www.dedigeeks.com • Managing Director • Service Superstars
-
10-07-2011, 12:31 AM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Location
- /home/kristoffer
- Posts
- 3,251
-
10-07-2011, 12:37 AM #12Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Posts
- 10,629
Varnish may succeed at a level, we've done testing with it and found it not to be as great as many people show it out to be, though again internal testing is probably more accurate than external services like Load-Impact.
Not saying it is bad but the results may be out of touch.██ l Dedigeeks • Shared • Wordpress • Dedicated • Established 2006
██ l Leading AUSTRALIAN Hosting Provider • Sydney & Melbourne Datacentres
██ l cPanel/WHM • R1Soft Backups • 24/7/365 Support • SMS Hosting Alerts*
██ l www.dedigeeks.com • Managing Director • Service Superstars
-
10-07-2011, 01:01 AM #13Disabled
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 16
the views on apache & varnish can be biased, but for specific application and scenario both can have best performances..... it is requirement of application that matters.....
-
10-07-2011, 02:30 AM #14Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Location
- /home/kristoffer
- Posts
- 3,251
Similar Threads
-
Varnish Plugin for cPanel / Apache - Fastest Web Server Setup Money Back Guarantee!
By UNIXy in forum Software & Scripts OffersReplies: 2Last Post: 09-16-2011, 03:54 AM -
Disable varnish?
By macmee in forum Web HostingReplies: 40Last Post: 07-29-2011, 01:24 PM -
Varnish cum Apache users please help
By shahrukhbachan in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 4Last Post: 06-25-2011, 06:58 PM -
Apache + Varnish Help
By v3locityx in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 1Last Post: 05-23-2011, 08:17 AM -
Which Server - Litespeed or Apache + Varnish ?
By Farrukh in forum Web HostingReplies: 266Last Post: 05-17-2011, 09:48 AM