[opentokix]

Useless

Varnish is not better in any shape or form than nginx for static content. Varnish has one single usecase, php-sites. - For everything else it will just add a layer of complexity that give no gains. And since varnish is essentially built on apache there is some issues with how it handles connections above about 50k/sec - where it gets complicated to configure, something that nginx does not have.

[mrweasel]

> varnish is essentially built on apache

Do you mean built "for" Apache? Because I think it written from scratch.

I wouldn't call it useless, but it's not exactly a CDN, it's missing the "Network" bit. This is just caching. You'd need something like this, but scaled out on multiple locations for it to be a CDN.

Also most of it isn't exactly NetBSD related, the same approach works on anything that runs Varnish and Nginx.

[firesteelrain]

It was built in 2005 by Poul-Henning Kamp. It can work with Apache. But definitely not the same codebase.

[youngtaff]

How wrong can one comment be?

You might want to read this post on the founding of Varnish https://info.varnish-software.com/blog/history-varnish-cache...

And Fastly would certainly disagree that it’s only useful for PHP as they built a whole company based on Varnish

[perbu]

There are quite a few CDNs based on Varnish out there. Most of them are private, though, so you don't really see them.

[firesteelrain]

You have a valid point regarding nginx for static content and its simplicity.

The rest of what you wrote is either wrong, oversimplified, or inaccurate.

[youngtaff]

Thing I've never understood with nginx is why would I want my web server to also be my mail server?