Hi Ben, Thanks a lot for your answers!
I'm looking forward to reading you about the other thread. Thanks! Thomas. On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Ben Scofield <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for the delay! I finally talked to our Varnish expert, and he > confirmed that: > > 1) our configuration should not impede Varnish's default behavior (re: > the first question in this thread), and > > 2) your app's resource configuration (# of dynos, etc.) doesn't affect > how much traffic Varnish can handle for it. Our best estimate for > Varnish's capacity for a single cached URL is on the order of 4000 > requests/second, sustained. > > I haven't dug deeply into your other thread yet, Thomas -- I'll take > another look at it when I can. > > Ben > > On Oct 12, 11:13 am, Thomas Balthazar <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Ben, >> >> Any update about this? >> >> Thanks, >> Thomas. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Thomas Balthazar <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hello Ben, >> >> > I just read you were about to talk to the Varnish specialist at Heroku. >> > I would really appreciate if you took the time to help me to find the >> > answer to those 2 unanswered questions about Varnish and caching : >> >http://groups.google.com/group/heroku/browse_thread/thread/8e39658d53... >> >http://groups.google.com/group/heroku/browse_thread/thread/fd23e886c2... >> >> > Thanks in advance for your help! >> > Thomas. >> >> > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Ben Scofield <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Not sure why this didn't come through earlier, but: >> >> >> I tried out a few experiments, and it looks like our setup doesn't >> >> interfere with this default behavior. I'm going to talk to someone >> >> with more intimate knowledge of our Varnish config to confirm that, >> >> but so far it looks promising. >> >> >> Ben >> >> >> On Oct 5, 12:00 pm, Chris Hanks <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Is anyone from Heroku around that might know how their setup works? >> >> >>> On Oct 2, 8:42 pm, Chris Hanks <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> > I'm wondering about Heroku's use of Varnish. Suppose I have a page >> >>> > that is expensive to produce (lots of database queries) but can be >> >>> > cached in Varnish. Right after Varnish's copy expires, if it's very >> >>> > popular, I might have a dozen people accessing it simultaneously >> >>> > before the newly created version can be stashed in Varnish. >> >> >>> > So, based on a thread I found (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/ >> >>> > varnish/misc/14750) it looks like Varnish is smart enough by default >> >>> > to only send that expensive request to my backend once, and serve up >> >>> > the response to all the people waiting for it (to prevent a dogpiling >> >>> > effect). But I know that Heroku has its own configuration for Varnish >> >>> > (with lots of servers in a hash ring), and I was wondering whether >> >>> > it's still set up to do this. >> >> >>> > Thanks! >> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> >> "Heroku" group. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> >> [email protected]. >> >> For more options, visit this group >> >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/heroku?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Heroku" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/heroku?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Heroku" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/heroku?hl=en.
