Varnish + Static HTML Pages - http

Question

I've recently come across a http web accelerator called Varnish. From what I've read, Varnish speeds up delivery of a website by optimizing every process of HTTP communication with the HTTP server using a reverse proxy configuration.
My question is that if you have a website that has its caching mechanism configured all the way down to static html files then how much more of an effect will Varnish have on this? Does a reverse proxy cut down the work that is performed by the HTTP server to process the request? If you have everything extensively cached on the server-side (HTTP headers, Etags, Expires Headers, Database Caching, Fragment and Page caching) then what more will a HTTP accelerator do to improve on this?

Answer 1

Firstly, we should differentiate between two different types of caching that go on in a normal web system: HTTP caching and server-side caching.
HTTP caching is controlled by HTTP headers, notably as you point out ETag and the various expiry mechanisms (including Expires and various aspects of Cache-Control). This is all covered in RFC 2616 (HTTP), section 13, and allows HTTP caches to return a response to an HTTP request from a client without having to go back to the origin server. In effect, the HTTP caching mechanism allows another machine between client and server to act as if it's the server, in certain cases. This is actually what varnish is doing, as we'll see in a minute; another common use that many people are familiar with is when ISPs provide an HTTP cache within their network, that can generally respond faster to their subscribers (and so improve perceived performance) than the origin servers outside their network.
Server-side caching includes database caching, and fragment and page caching, which are really all just ways of the web server avoiding doing some expensive operation (say, a database query, or rendering a particular piece of a template) by doing it once then keeping the result in a cache for a while.
I said earlier that varnish was an HTTP cache, which means that straight away it's able to be more efficient than a web server serving even a static file. Consider what a web server has to do:
parse the HTTP request
map the URI (and any relevant request headers, such as Accept-Encoding) onto a file
pull up information about the file to build the HTTP headers in the response; these are known as entity headers (RFC 2616 section 7.1, which include things such as Content-Length, Content-Type and the Expires and Last-Modified headers used in HTTP caching)
figure out what additional response headers (RFC 2616 section 6.2; these include ETag and Vary, both important parts of HTTP caching) and general header fields (RFC 2616 section 4.5) are needed
write the HTTP status line and headers out to the network
write the file's contents out to the network
By comparison, varnish is upstream of all of this, so all it has to do is:
parse the HTTP request
map the URI (and any relevant request headers) onto an entry in its internal cache
see if there's an entry; if there is, write it to the network; the HTTP headers will have been stored in the cache
If there isn't an entry, varnish has to do a little more work:
connect to a web server behind it that will run through all the steps 1-6 in the first list to generate a response
write the response to the network, including all the HTTP headers
store the response in its cache
In particular because the HTTP headers and entity body (the entire response) can be cached by varnish, if it can serve out of its cache it has less work to do. When you start generating the response dynamically in your server, the difference can become even more pronounced: say you have a page that takes 5 seconds to generate, but is the same for everyone hitting your site, varnish should be able to serve that in at most milliseconds out of the cache (plus whatever time it takes to get the response across the network to the HTTP client), and has a neat mechanism (the grace period) so it can keep on doing it while hitting the backend server once to refresh the cached version of the page.
Of course, you can introduce server-side caching to improve the speed with which your web server can process a request, but if you have a response you can cache in varnish it's generally going to be faster to do that. (There are various things that are hard to cache in varnish, particularly if you're using cookies or have pages that change depending on which user is looking at them. While it's possible to continue using varnish in these cases, unless you need really incredible speed, as far as I'm aware most people start optimising those cases using server-side caching and other techniques before hitting up varnish.)
(Note that varnish can also edit headers and indeed data going in and out of the cache, which complicates things. But the main points still stand, and even while editing things on the fly varnish can be incredibly fast.)