Yes, this site is accelerated by Varnish. Got a problem with that?

by Rudd-O published 2008/12/09 02:36:48 GMT+0, last modified 2013-06-26T03:24:24+00:00
Apparently there are some Varnish dudes out there who do not approve?

Someone is trying to call me a hypocrite (sneakily, might I add).  Since the LiveJournal in question is not taking eponymous comments from anyone not from LiveJournal itself, I have taken the liberty of responding here.

I use Varnish 2.  The reason I use Varnish is (and I have always been open about it) because Varnish is the superior choice.  Now, I've complained in the past about Varnish not being adequate, which naturally may seem to implicate hypocrisy from my part.

To that implication, I have two things to say:

  1. Varnish 1 was most definitely not adequate.  The problem lies in the fact that Varnish did not provide facilities to handle caching of content requested with AdSense cookies in a straightforward manner.  With the addition of regsub() in Varnish 2 -- which allows me to modify the Cookie header before it goes into the Varnish caching machinery pretty effectively, if a little bit clumsy -- Varnish is now adequate for my needs, thank you very much.
  2. I take issue with the diva attitude that one of the developers took in responding to my bug report and associated mailing list discussion.  Sure, he has the right to bitch about me all he wants.  Conversely, I too have the right to complain about it, and to point out that his was most definitely not the way to treat anyone.  Especially when my complaint had a sound practical basis.

The important take-away message here is short: treat people right and listen to them instead of dismissing them.  Furthermore, it seems that I was right in the end -- after all, the new functionality is precisely what I requested in the first place.

By the way, thanks for the software, guys.  It works perfectly now.