Caching has cut backend costs and traffic while configuration language still needs simplificationOne of the best features Varnish Enterprise offers is how it maintains the cache, serving it via memory, which is very fast and helpful in our case. We did not want to add extra layers or scale our backend servers too much for cost reasons, and Varnish Enterprise was able to handle those requests well with its memory, as memory I/O is significantly faster than file system I/O. The configuration of Varnish Enterprise was easy because it uses Varnish Configuration Language, which takes some time to get used to, but it is manageable. I particularly appreciated the request routing feature; if a cached request is not found, Varnish Enterprise dynamically routes the request to backend servers. It also shields the backend traffic and IPs, adding an advantage. The challenge we solved with Varnish Enterprise is that it reduced RAM and resource consumption on the backend servers. When we added Varnish Enterprise, we did not see any spike in resource usage, but after removing it, we experienced a significant spike because all requests went to the backend servers, forcing us to scale up. Adding a single Varnish Enterprise server was enough since it maintained the cache efficiently, allowing for less scaling of the backend servers and containers, making it cost-effective. Varnish Enterprise positively impacted our organization by saving us a considerable amount of cost. Without Varnish Enterprise, we would need to scale our containers to around two hundred, but with Varnish Enterprise, we maintained fifty to eighty fewer containers while handling the same traffic, which was definitely advantageous.
