Mailing List Archive: Compression Policy

Compression Policy

Apr 8, 2017, 11:49 AM

Post #1 of 3 (376 views)

I am looking at how best to set up compression on my setup, that is a
Varnish server handing out cached content from a separate back-end
server. In his notes on the subject, Poul-Henning says that there is no
need to store both a gzipped and an un-gzipped copy of requests in the
cache, since Varnish can gunzip on the fly.

https://varnish-cache.org/docs/4.1/phk/gzip.html

My question is, wouldn't it be quicker to have both a gzipped and
ungzipped copy stored in memory, so that this does not need to be
changed on the fly? Or is the time taken to ungzip so negligible as to
make this unnecessary?

Thanks
Nigel

_______________________________________________
varnish-misc mailing list
varnish-misc@varnish-cache.org
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc

Re: Compression Policy [ In reply to ]

guillaume at varnish-software

Apr 9, 2017, 1:36 PM

Post #2 of 3 (376 views)

Permalink

You can test, but I don't think it's worth the trouble. Virtually all
clients support gzip, so you'll only really use one version of your object.

--
Guillaume Quintard

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Nigel Peck <np.lists@sharphosting.uk> wrote:

>
> I am looking at how best to set up compression on my setup, that is a
> Varnish server handing out cached content from a separate back-end server.
> In his notes on the subject, Poul-Henning says that there is no need to
> store both a gzipped and an un-gzipped copy of requests in the cache, since
> Varnish can gunzip on the fly.
>
> https://varnish-cache.org/docs/4.1/phk/gzip.html
>
> My question is, wouldn't it be quicker to have both a gzipped and
> ungzipped copy stored in memory, so that this does not need to be changed
> on the fly? Or is the time taken to ungzip so negligible as to make this
> unnecessary?
>
> Thanks
> Nigel
>
> _______________________________________________
> varnish-misc mailing list
> varnish-misc@varnish-cache.org
> https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
>

Re: Compression Policy [ In reply to ]

np.lists at sharphosting

Apr 9, 2017, 10:40 PM

Post #3 of 3 (376 views)

Permalink

Thanks Guillaume, that's good to know. I'll give it some thoughts and perhaps implement it and keep an eye on the TTFB.

Nigel

> On 9 Apr 2017, at 15:36, Guillaume Quintard <guillaume@varnish-software.com> wrote:
>
> You can test, but I don't think it's worth the trouble. Virtually all clients support gzip, so you'll only really use one version of your object.
>
> --
> Guillaume Quintard
>
>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Nigel Peck <np.lists@sharphosting.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I am looking at how best to set up compression on my setup, that is a Varnish server handing out cached content from a separate back-end server. In his notes on the subject, Poul-Henning says that there is no need to store both a gzipped and an un-gzipped copy of requests in the cache, since Varnish can gunzip on the fly.
>>
>> https://varnish-cache.org/docs/4.1/phk/gzip.html
>>
>> My question is, wouldn't it be quicker to have both a gzipped and ungzipped copy stored in memory, so that this does not need to be changed on the fly? Or is the time taken to ungzip so negligible as to make this unnecessary?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Nigel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> varnish-misc mailing list
>> varnish-misc@varnish-cache.org
>> https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
>