←back to thread

Deno Under TinyKVM in Varnish

(info.varnish-software.com)
99 points perbu | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
CoolCold ◴[] No.43652606[source]
Nowadays I almost have zero intersection with Varnish - my own impression it was much more popular like 10 years ago or even more.

I know couple of frameworks/systems support it, especially in php world.

Looks like that it's lost in layers - dev guys don't care much, sysadmins are sort of extincted, noone to bother to add Varnish into request processing queue. Needless to say, people ok HN even complain on Nginx configs,while for base caching it's much simpler, from my perspective.

replies(4): >>43652810 #>>43653387 #>>43654493 #>>43654609 #
pbowyer ◴[] No.43654609[source]
I borderline love Varnish cache, but the way the open source and commercial versions have diverged and all the nice features only go into the $10k/yr+ commercial version sucks.

Features like the memory governer [0], because trying to predict how much memory (open-source) Varnish will use is an absolute PITA and a sure-fire way to run out of memory if you're not careful.

My clients can't justify the commercial license costs (as a sibling comment says, CDNs eat Varnish's lunch in that market) and yet what I can do with Varnish and the power it gives me makes it real magic.

It would be nice to see a modern reimplementation of Varnish, open-sourced, but I doubt that would ever happen.

0. https://info.varnish-software.com/blog/two-minute-tech-tuesd...

replies(2): >>43656222 #>>43663661 #
1. CoolCold ◴[] No.43663661[source]
Afair Varnish can store cache in files too? I may be messing things here, as I use Nginx like 500 times more often.

If yes, you can store that data with fixed size tmpfs - while on servers with modern NVMe handling 5 Gbyte/sec I would not bother.