<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Caching Performance: Squid vs. Varnish</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cachingchronicles.com/caching-performance-squid-vs-varnish/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cachingchronicles.com/caching-performance-squid-vs-varnish/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:47:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: sru</title>
		<link>http://cachingchronicles.com/caching-performance-squid-vs-varnish/comment-page-1/#comment-74</link>
		<dc:creator>sru</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:16:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cachingchronicles.com/?p=55#comment-74</guid>
		<description>Of course it&#039;s always better to do one&#039;s own testing. And I certainly didn&#039;t want to really criticize the method you applied. For me, testing is somewhat irrelevant for in one of the larger installations I&#039;ve got systems running that get &gt; 1000 hits/s in a live environment. So I know pretty well how good Squid and Varnish perform in the real world ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course it&#8217;s always better to do one&#8217;s own testing. And I certainly didn&#8217;t want to really criticize the method you applied. For me, testing is somewhat irrelevant for in one of the larger installations I&#8217;ve got systems running that get > 1000 hits/s in a live environment. So I know pretty well how good Squid and Varnish perform in the real world <img src='http://cachingchronicles.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bryan Migliorisi</title>
		<link>http://cachingchronicles.com/caching-performance-squid-vs-varnish/comment-page-1/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryan Migliorisi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cachingchronicles.com/?p=55#comment-73</guid>
		<description>Hey, thanks for the link back.  You are certainly right, it has sparked another holy war.  

One correction, however, is that in my first test I did test only against a single object of a fixed size but in the second test I had a script to generate random URLs that all point to files of different sizes.  The script allows me to specify how many results, so I could easily generate 10,000,000 random URLs.  Within this list there are (very) likely to be duplicate URLs which is similar to a production environment - but certainly not identical. 

The script can be modified to be more or less random, but on average, most of our pages fall within the 25K to 35K range, so I tried to keep my tests within that range.

I should have said somewhere in my posts that while my results are indicative of the performance of both options in general, they are tailored to my needs.  Do your own tests that correlate to needs of your own business if you want to get usable data for yourself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, thanks for the link back.  You are certainly right, it has sparked another holy war.  </p>
<p>One correction, however, is that in my first test I did test only against a single object of a fixed size but in the second test I had a script to generate random URLs that all point to files of different sizes.  The script allows me to specify how many results, so I could easily generate 10,000,000 random URLs.  Within this list there are (very) likely to be duplicate URLs which is similar to a production environment &#8211; but certainly not identical. </p>
<p>The script can be modified to be more or less random, but on average, most of our pages fall within the 25K to 35K range, so I tried to keep my tests within that range.</p>
<p>I should have said somewhere in my posts that while my results are indicative of the performance of both options in general, they are tailored to my needs.  Do your own tests that correlate to needs of your own business if you want to get usable data for yourself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sru</title>
		<link>http://cachingchronicles.com/caching-performance-squid-vs-varnish/comment-page-1/#comment-71</link>
		<dc:creator>sru</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cachingchronicles.com/?p=55#comment-71</guid>
		<description>LOL.
Ok, you win. I surrender. Just check the headers sent by this server :-D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LOL.<br />
Ok, you win. I surrender. Just check the headers sent by this server <img src='http://cachingchronicles.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':-D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Per Buer</title>
		<link>http://cachingchronicles.com/caching-performance-squid-vs-varnish/comment-page-1/#comment-70</link>
		<dc:creator>Per Buer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:37:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cachingchronicles.com/?p=55#comment-70</guid>
		<description>No. Thats not true. You should always use Varnish, dammit! :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No. Thats not true. You should always use Varnish, dammit! <img src='http://cachingchronicles.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
