Web Hosting Talk : Advertising Forums : Software & Scripts Offers & Requests : Software & Scripts Offers : UNIXY.NET: The First cPanel Varnish Add-on / Script

[UNIXy]

Varnish and cPanel

UNIXy is please to announce the beta release of the first Varnish cPanel script. You can read about it all here: http://www.unixy.net/varnish

Cheers!
Joe / UNIXY

[Fastian]

Nice
I think it's time to do some testing.

The benchmark result there was actually performed by you??
Also, are there any minimum requirements for this script?

[cenourinha]

Well, those benchmark results look pretty good. I will for sure need to test Varnish in one of our servers. Congratulations for your work.

[UNIXy]

Hi Fastian,

Originally Posted by Fastian

Nice
I think it's time to do some testing.

The benchmark result there was actually performed by you??

Correct.

Originally Posted by Fastian

Also, are there any minimum requirements for this script?

The script itself coexists with cPanel and shares resources available to cPanel.

Varnish on the other hand lets the OS manage memory. In other words, if Varnish finds available RAM in the system it will happily cache objects. Varnish will not be able to address more than 2GB of memory on 32-bit systems (known limitation for all scripts).

64-bit Varnish does not have such limitation. It can leverage all available RAM to cache objects. by default, the script installs the 64-bit version if the system supports it.

Best Regards
Joe / UNIXY

[JLHC]

Can this work with LiteSpeed + CloudLinux or will it only work with Apache + CentOS?

[UNIXy]

Originally Posted by JLHC

Can this work with LiteSpeed + CloudLinux or will it only work with Apache + CentOS?

Short answer is no. Longer answer, it's only been tested on CentOS+Apache. I recall reading somewhere that LSTech was getting ready to release its own caching layer for LSWS.

Regards

[iseletsk]

Across how many virtual hosts, distinct URLs was it tested?

Do I understand it right that it is catching proxy?
Will it catch any dynamic content or just static? Does it use headers to figure out if it can catch dynamic content?
Also, what kind of memory footprint does it have, and how does it relate to number of sites/amount of content being catched.

Any additional info on benchmarks would be very interesting, like if you were hitting same url/different URLs, if it was static URL that you were hitting, or some kind of php/cgi., etc..

[PeterPP]

looks interestnig and will sign up for trial espcially like the part that oes not touch current apache+cpanel, which might reduce many tboules!

[jj@24khost]

I signed up but am waiting for approval

This doesn't release till next week?

[UNIXy]

Originally Posted by Peter-SZ

looks interestnig and will sign up for trial espcially like the part that oes not touch current apache+cpanel, which might reduce many tboules!

That's definitely one of the advantages over running Nginx+cPanel where it pretty much smears cPanel with pre/post domain/subdomain hooks.

Best
Joe / UNIXY

[UNIXy]

Originally Posted by sosolabs

I signed up but am waiting for approval

This doesn't release till next week?

Hi there,

The first batch of the beta release for new signups is scheduled early next week. If you absolutely need it this week, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do.

Cheers,
Joe / UNIXY

[InnovusHost]

Do you have any recommended specs for systems that use this plugin? Can you give a little more detail on how this works? Pretty neat plugin, I hope to be able to use it down the road.

[UNIXy]

Originally Posted by iseletsk

Across how many virtual hosts, distinct URLs was it tested?

Hi Iseletsk,

Sorry, I must have missed your post. vhosts are not a limitation for this configuration if that's what you're asking.

Do I understand it right that it is catching proxy?

Correct

Will it catch any dynamic content or just static? Does it use headers to figure out if it can catch dynamic content?
Also, what kind of memory footprint does it have, and how does it relate to number of sites/amount of content being catched.

Correct on all counts but the script has much more advanced caching features so it's not limited to caching static object but dynamic objects too. That's how it beats Nginx in some aspects.

Any additional info on benchmarks would be very interesting, like if you were hitting same url/different URLs, if it was static URL that you were hitting, or some kind of php/cgi., etc..

The benchmark was done last year. Here's a link: http://www.unixy.net/apache-vs-litespeed

Here's an interesting quote from a Drupal developers/testers:

Yes, though Boost with nginx serves pages much faster than Boost with Apache-prefork+mod_php, on the order of 400% faster, approaching Varnish speeds and without the memory issues. (I never tested Apache-worker+php-cgi so I can't speak to speed.)

Still Varnish beat out nginx by about 18% in my personal quick and dirty testing. Off the top of my head, and without looking up my numbers, it was:

Boost with Apache-prefork: about 500 req/s;
Boost with Nginx: about 2000 req/s; and
Varnish: about 2400 req/s.

It's faster than Nginx (18% faster) but the other advantage is that you have no hooks dependency and vhost overhead.

Regards
Joe / UNIXY

[UNIXy]

Originally Posted by RU-Adam

Do you have any recommended specs for systems that use this plugin? Can you give a little more detail on how this works? Pretty neat plugin, I hope to be able to use it down the road.

I highly recommend a 64-bit system over 32-bit. The reason being swap space (not just memory) is limited to 2GB on 32-bit. Varnish manages memory well and leverages the kernel for all core memory management tasks.

Varnish doesn't consume much CPU but memory is key. Essentially, its memory consumption is proportional to the traffic your portal receives. But it won't just crash should it not be able to allocate memory. it will keep on flushing objects and make room for recently queried object. And by object, that can be a static file or a page - it doesn't matter.

Regards

Regards
Joe / UNIXY

[ayksolutions]

Looks great Joe. We will be sure to give it a try as well.