Hacker News Reader

Um, but varnish is just a cache and so of course it's faster for static content? Or am I missing something?

Litespeed can work with php several times faster than apache+php while serving dynamic content (and so can nginx).

Varnish is good for caching any object; static or dynamic. The plugin we wrote uses Varnish to do a lot of dynamic page caching. Varnish is better at dynamic page caching than Nginx.

Litespeed has a caching mechanism too (introduced recently). But I think it requires an enterprise licesense of 2+ CPU. Here are some benchmarks of Apache+Varnish vs Litespeed: http://unixy.net/apache-vs-litespeed

Regards

Not this again...here are the reasons that benchmark sucked: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1593611

So would you use Varnish over Nginx as a reverse proxy to Apache?

What about an Nginx+FastCGI+PHP-FPM stack? - would you run Varnish in front of that?

The article is about full page caching. How's that different than static content?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com