Hacker News: slink_vinyl

New comment by slink_vinyl in "Vinyl Cache and Varnish Cache"

slink_vinyl — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:34:37 +0000

So because perbu was clearly talking with his varnish software hat on, here's the perspective from someone working on Vinyl Cache FOSS only:

I already commented on the separation of concerns in the tutorial, and the unpublished project which one person from uplex is working on full time will have the key store in a separate process. You might want to read the intro of the tutorial if you have not done so.

But the main reason for why the new project will be integrating TLS more deeply has not been mentioned: It is HTTP/3, or rather QUIC. More on that later this year.

New comment by slink_vinyl in "Vinyl Cache and Varnish Cache"

slink_vinyl — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:28:17 +0000

To claim "the ergonomics and the performance of not being integrated into Varnish are pretty bad" you would need to show some numbers. In my view, https://vinyl-cache.org/tutorials/tls_haproxy.html debunks the "ergonomics are bad" argument, because using TLS backends is literally no different than using non-TLS. On performance, the fundamentals have already been laid out in https://vinyl-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/ssl.html - crypto being so expensive, that the additional I/O to copy in and out another process makes no difference.

But, again, if you have numbers, show them.

New comment by slink_vinyl in "Vinyl Cache and Varnish Cache"

slink_vinyl — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:23:49 +0000

haproxy supports both the offload (client) and onload (backend) use case. This is the main reason for why I personally prefer it. I can not comment on how well hitch works in comparison, because I have not used it for years.

New comment by slink_vinyl in "Vinyl Cache and Varnish Cache"

slink_vinyl — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 10:18:17 +0000

because the topic keeps coming up, I now wrote the tutorial which we should have had years ago: https://vinyl-cache.org/tutorials/tls_haproxy.html