If you want a non-patched server, built for this task, consider pgeodns:
http://geo.bitnames.com/
It is used by svn.apache.org, CPAN, the NTP pool, etc.
I personally have my doubts about any value created for static pages doing this though, there are relatively cheap CDNs on the market now, rather than trying to find VMs in a dozen countries.
In addition you have to be careful about services like OpenDNS which for example, made svn.apache.org always resolve to the EU even for users in the US, due to how their DNS anycast is setup.
> I personally have my doubts about any value created for static pages doing this though, there are relatively cheap CDNs on the market now, rather than trying to find VMs in a dozen countries.
Please share the options.
My scenario is that I transfer around 800MB in static content (images, CSS and JS) per month. I'd simply want that part CDN'd.
I used to use SimpleCDN but found them too expensive after they changed their pricing model.
The cost of 2 additional Linodes would be (2 x $19.95) = $39.90 per month.
My bandwidth usage isn't so great as to make the cost of an off-the-shelf CDN solution beneficial, yet it's great enough that a couple of Linodes would make a visible speed difference to the 100,000 unique visitors per month that visit my site from North America.
To my mind there is a gap between small site and large site into which running a couple of VMs to provide a cheap CDN is an advantage.
Although if you can show me cheaper drop-in (pass-through) alternatives to SimpleCDN then I'm very eager to hear about them.
Sounds like you're looking for CloudFront. I run a site with similar usage to yours (at least on the upload side), and I see about $6 in S3 charges and another $8 for CloudFront each month.
As the grandparent said, I just can't see why anybody would spend even a minute thinking about rolling their own CDN on their own servers for anything but the most extreme use cases. It's a solved problem, and it's ridiculously cheap.
I got my numbers wrong thanks to an early morning typo... 800GB bandwidth per month, not 800MB.
Of the options recommended:
Max CDN = $39.95 per month deal (1TB), usually $99.95 = Same price as DIY on the deal, or more expensive normally.
SoftLayer = $140 per month (1TB) = More expensive.
CacheFly = $299 per month (2TB) = More expensive and have to upload files to server.
Rackspace CloudFiles = $176 per month (based on current 800GB bandwidth alone - other costs not yet factored in) = More expensive.
Amazon CloudFront = $131 per month (based on current 800GB bandwidth alone - other costs not yet factored in) = More expensive and you have to upload files to the server.
So yeah... DIY looks substantially cheaper. There's still a big gap between small site and large site. For a few days of my time I can easily save myself a lot of potential cost as well as speed up my website. I can't really see why I wouldn't set up my own CDN.
When you value your time at $0 lots of things seem cheaper. For $131 a month on CloudFront you get a better CDN than you are going to build and avoid all the sysadmin headaches, syncing headaches, etc.
But the $19.95 linodes have a 200GB/month limit - so you'd need at an absolute minimum of 4 to do 800GB/month, and given you won't have perfect geographical spread, about 6-8 is perhaps more realistic. So you'd be looking at least $120 for the VPS, plus the time/hassle of setting this up and managing/monitoring it.
So it's just as expensive, and there's no way the DIY model would be cheaper in terms of TCO.
I already host with Linode and they pool the bandwidth allowance for all Linodes in your account.
As I've already got nicely layered VMs some have a totally unused allowance. For example my MySQL nodes only transfer traffic on the private network at Linode and so both the master server and slave use virtually zilch of their bandwidth allowance.
I'm fairly sure that most Linode users with more than 1 node will be using only a fraction of their allowance.
My total pooled bandwidth allowance with Linode is close to 4TB, of which in total I'm using only 1TB with 800GB being static content.
My point was simple: The DIY solution with Linode looks to be a really good idea as I already am with them and placing CDN servers in other datacenters should mean good routing internally within their network (or peers) as well as being extremely cheap.
I have yet to be shown that for my scenario there is a cheaper option and that this is solved. I am very happy to be proven wrong as it will save me some work, but so far DIY is winning.
We were doing the same, if not more, at massify. We used Panther Express which doesn't bill on amount, but instead on how much of their pipe you are using.
(Amazon CloudFiles too, but again, you need to upload files to them).
In addition, if you are just using GeoDNS to load balancing between two US east/west locations, the big wins with GeoDNS are really about users in Australia, Asia or Europe, for closer localities, the only way really is to use an Anycast base CDN, because the odds of an ISPs DNS servers not being close enough for GeoDNS are far too high.
When we searched, we explored options like panther CDN, voxel and edgecast. After some testing and negotiation, we found that Edgecast CDN offered the best performance for the buck. I suggest contacting them to see what they can offer.
VMs have dropped in price dramatically over the last couple of months. You can find 128MB/256MB nodes for less than $5/mo. You just have to do a bit of digging ;)
For part 2, we intend on showing how the CDN can cache dynamic content, not just static files. As a matter of fact, it's just one or two simple changes in Varnish VCL functions.
This is an interesting article but one thing I don't yet understand (which may become clear in part 2) is why both Nginx and Varnish are needed. Nginx can certainly do this on its own, and as far as I know, so can Varnish which has been designed to handle slow backends.
I agree, nginx seems completely superfluous here. Actually, it's worse than superfluous - the way it's configured, nginx seems to be caching dynamic files but never expiring them.
The above post proposed that Varnish is not needed because Nginx could handle the task well with the best performance. But Nginx is a bit slower than Varnish. It's been shown in benchmarks that Litespeed is a bit faster than Nginx. By inductive reasoning to show that Varnish is faster than Nginx, I posted a link to show that Varnish is faster than Litespeed, which in turn is faster than Nginx. So Varnish is faster than Nginx.
I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks; just the factual content of you post(s).
I understand that you perceived my posting of the benchmark link to be inappropriate and I agree with you to an extent. It remains to say that the link represents my proof within the context of the conversation chain from earlier.
You seem to be a long-term contributor here and I'm sure it's appreciated. I would be interested if you addressed the flaws or issues with the benchmark results. I do make mistakes just like anybody but own up to them at the end.
Let me know if you have any question and I'll be happy to discuss.
The title says 'Apache vs Litespeed', when in reality it is 'Varnish vs Litespeed', Apache has nothing to do with this particular benchmark.
2. Questionable results
Varnish serving 217.05 req/sec for a static page at 100 concurrency level? Something is seriously messed up in the setup; Varnish can easily handle thousands of req/s for something as simple as looking up a cache entry and returning a static file for 100 clients. Oh wait, 11177.99 [Kbytes/sec] - looks like you saturated the pipe, making it a test of how fast your network is, and nothing to do with Varnish.
3. Flawed benchmark testing procedure
You can't expect a simple `ab -c 100 -n 10000` to provide any insight whatsoever towards the general handling of a server. The only thing obvious is that Litespeed has been saturated with 100 concurrent connections. If you're going to do a benchmark, you must post varying concurrency levels at least (along with exact setup configurations). Likewise, cpu and memory usage are just as important to providing valuable insight.
4. Comparing apples to oranges
I'm not entirely sure what Litespeed is doing (eg. does it cache statically?) since you haven't specified it exactly, but considering that almost 70% of the requests failed and almost all requests after the first few had a different content length, I would assume that Litespeed is returning a dynamic request each time, whereas Varnish is returning a static file. I have no doubt in my mind that if you ran the same scenario (ie. Litespeed serving a static file as well) the results would be much different.
5. Irrelevant to the article benchmark
Saying "But Nginx is a bit slower than Varnish", then linking to a terrible irrelevant benchmark and using circular logic (based on another completely crap Litespeed vs Nginx for serving php!? benchmark) to infer that Varnish is faster than nginx hurts my brain.
I ran a really simple benchmark on Varnish 2.1.3 and nginx 0.8.49's proxy_cache directive on a single url; nginx is faster.
However, what if we test a heavy config with a bunch of complicated rules? Varnish's VCL compiles straight to C and might give it the edge in those cases. What if we use test a million different urls and really test how each one handles their cache hit/miss procedures. How do they fare under real world scenarios where thousands of different clients on various connection speeds are connected? I know nginx is damn efficient memory wise when dealing with a load of keepalives.
1. All is disclosed in the page. Varnish is indeed mentioned on the page as being the crucial piece that made is all happen. But mea culpa, the title "Apache vs Litespeed" does need the Varnish bit added. I'll correct it shortly.
2. You're making the assumption that varnish/VCL is caching the first server-side result indefinitely (ttl). That is not the case. So apache is still doing work behind the scenes, albeit less work than it's used to. Whatever hosting conditions we imposed on Varnish/apache are the same imposed on lsws. It's fair game (for better or worse).
3. Actually Litespeed is able to handle more than 100 concurrent connections. What choked it apparently is its inability to manage the 100 PHP requests well. It actually ran out of memory during the experiments. Again, Litespeed was given the same amount of memory and was under the same conditions as Apache/Varnish. While the environment/conditions are not optimal, both varnish/httpd and Litespeed started equal. At first, we started with -c 10 and -n 10000 but both setups performed fairly well. So we upped it to -c 100. Checkout the load average from the Litespeed node below.
4. One of the goals of the experiment is to install stock Litespeed and stock Apache (RPM). No configuration changes were made to either. Litespeed has static object caching (20MB) enabled by default. Varnishd was given a 16MB cache. Stock installs are common in the Web hosting business, which is the scope/interest here.
5. Based on experience with client portals, Varnish as a cache seems to perform better than Nginx as pure cache. It could a perception. We use Nginx and/or Varnish where it makes sense though. They're both free and open so why not!
6. Can't agree more. Just for the record, we didn't select the hardware and environment to favor either web server. We had a vacant server, network, and resources and went from there. The fact that this environment did not produce good results for Litespeed is purely coincidental.
FYI, Litespeed Tech noticed the benchmark and mentioned that they're working on developing a cache module that will ship with Litespeed web server. We'll see.
What do you need a fully-fledged web server on the edge nodes for? Wouldn't it be better for varnish to proxy everything to the back end dynamic server directly, except for requests that need to use the local edge node nginx?
The post describes a setup with two cacheing layers on each edge node, varnish cache in front of ngingx cache, which has got to be sub-optimal.
Nginx is used as a disk cache and varnish is used as a memory cache. So you're saying that why not scrap nginx and let varnish run the show on the edge nodes? That works just fine too.
Keep in mind that the goal of the article is to build an affordable CDN based on VM edge nodes. Memory is still expensive on VMs (especially if you're going to be renting VMs in costly locations). So if you have say a 20GB static store that needs to be served, on a 2GB RAM VPS, Varnish will only be able to cache that much files and be forced to make round trips to the dynamic node on miss.
Varnish does have "persistent" storage capabilities but from what I've read they're still experimental.
Not sure why you're getting negged here; using nginx without Varnish, you're not going to get nearly the speed, and using Vanish on Apache just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Not sure what you mean by "has some performance penalty compared to Varnish" however.
Nginx "has some performance penalty compared to Varnish"
The performance penalty comes the number of system calls needed to complete the request. According to the Varnish arch docs, it's 18 syscalls (http://varnish-cache.org/wiki/ArchitectNotes). Also, Varnish doesn't malloc for each new request/header. It mallocs once per workspace.
Unfortunately there's no such thing as Nginx vs Varnish benchmarks because Varnish is just a cache (apple to orange comparison).
Header manip is very important if one needs to control caching. I'm not sure Nginx has this capability at such granular level. Varnish's VCL excels at this.
As explained above, all info has been disclosed on the page in question. It's up to the reader to agree or disagree with the results. Let's face it, benchmarks are always going to be controversial and imperfect. One should always take the initiative to verify results by running their own tests.
Nginx does have that capability on a much more granular level in fact.
That benchmark was entirely useless for all the points I mentioned in the other post, but predominantly because you saturated your network on one of those tests, which meant the bottleneck was the network and not the webserver.
All your counterpoints were ignorant/naive and just went to show me how much you don't understand what is going on.
This wouldn't be a bad thing in itself, everyone has to start somewhere, but to think you do this for a living...
Let me clear up a few things. Again, the point of the experiment is not to setup the perfect environment for either VM but to subject both Web servers to fair and equal conditions. Whether it is 1GB RAM, 100Mbps switch ports, stock configurations, etc. It's fair game.
Now, I don't know if you have experience in the Web hosting business but perfection is not and never will be the goal. Clients could care less about the back-end or details as long as the response they get at the browser is acceptable. That's what drives our efforts in technology.
You keep on repeating the idea that no one needs both Varnish and Nginx in their design. Again, there's benefit in running such configuration. It's practical, effective, and thankfully keeps the business flowing. Here's an example of a successful business, besides us ;), doing it: http://www.heroku.com. If you don't realize the benefits of running Varnish over Nginx or Nginx over Varnish in certain situations, that would be one stubborn opinion. So please, stop my wasting my time.
> You keep on repeating the idea that no one needs both Varnish and Nginx in their design.
I never said that at any point.
What I did say was your reasoning that Varnish is faster than Nginx is flawed:
Apache+Varnish is 97% faster than Litespeed [1]
Litespeed is faster than Nginx [2]
*therefore I infer* Varnish is faster than Nginx.
Those cited benchmarks are both crap, and if they are relevant to a particular setup (ie yours), then you cannot use them on a public forum as proof that one is faster than the other.
You see, the problem I have is that you're spreading FUD which many will read and believe (as you do).
The instructions assume some familiarity with BIND and Varnish, what I'd love to see would be a Linode article explaining how to use their datacenters to do this.
Specifically I'd love to put noes in 2 US datacenters and the London one to help reduce my page load speed for the US visitors, whilst leaving the dynamic nodes all in London where most of my users are.
Relying on MaxMind for your CDN location targetting is not how I would recommend doing this.
Anycast is better these days as it will taking routing topology into consideration over a hardcoded list of IP addresses. And routing topology can then be adjusted to account for congestion and other variables.
Great article to help me understand a bit more on how CDNs work! As others have pointed out the cost-effectiveness of deploying your own CDN is questionable in this climate, but the KNOWLEDGE of how your leased CDN works is certainly valuable!
It is used by svn.apache.org, CPAN, the NTP pool, etc.
I personally have my doubts about any value created for static pages doing this though, there are relatively cheap CDNs on the market now, rather than trying to find VMs in a dozen countries.
In addition you have to be careful about services like OpenDNS which for example, made svn.apache.org always resolve to the EU even for users in the US, due to how their DNS anycast is setup.