As someone who has never used Varnish but has used Nginx's cache to some degree... whats the benefit of placing varnish in the middle vs going with Nginx?
Do I understand this right?
It supports HTTP/2, but doesn't support HTTPS. Therefore it supports HTTP/2 in a mostly unusable form, because browser vendors (for good reasons) decided to support HTTP/2 only over HTTPS.
<a href="https://www.nginx.com/blog/maximizing-drupal-8-performance-nginx-part-ii-caching-load-balancing/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nginx.com/blog/maximizing-drupal-8-performance-n...</a><p>In the BBC’s testing, they found that with NGINX as a drop-in replacement for Varnish, they saw five times more throughput.
Historically, PHK was a very vocal criticizer of SPDY and HTTP/2: <a href="http://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html</a><p>Of course he relented and implemented SPDY and HTTP/2 anyway.<p>But all the same I can't help but feel that his original criticsm still stands, and what we need is a rethink of e.g. cookies.
It's always good to see new stuff coming out for Varnish. Do these changes warrant a major jump in release numbers especially when HTTP/2 support (biggest feature) is experimental?<p>Anyway, I'm looking forward to testing it out and integrating v5 with Cachoid ( shameful plug: <a href="https://www.cachoid.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cachoid.com/</a> ).
From the release notes <a href="http://varnish.org/docs/5.0/whats-new/relnote-5.0.html" rel="nofollow">http://varnish.org/docs/5.0/whats-new/relnote-5.0.html</a> "It is important that people understand that Free and Open Source Software isn't the same as gratis software: Somebody has to pay the developers mortgages and student loans."<p>Varnish is an excellent piece of software, but I thought it was totally funded by the commercial side varnish software. How does this model work? It seems odd to ask for donations while also selling an expensive supported version?