WebSockets – Varnish, Nginx, and Node.js

This post was published 2 years, 4 months ago. Due to the rapidly evolving world of technology, some concepts may no longer be applicable.

Like many others I have been drawn in by the appeal of websockets and their use in (near) real-time communication. As such one of my current projects uses Node.js and websockets (via socket.io). To maximize compatibility, I would, of course, like my Node.js site to run on port 80. My server, however, is not used exclusively for this project – it also has traditional PHP/MySQL sites running on it. Which brings me to my problem:

My current setup has Varnish as a caching layer – to cache the dynamic PHP scripts – and Nginx as a webserver. Together, these have excellent performance. My objective, in adding in Node.js is to have it running behind both of these. Varnish binds to port 80 and provides the publicly accessible interface to all sites on the server – this will allow me to cache dynamically generated content from Node.js as well as the content that is currently cached. Nginx will serve my static content – from some brief tests, it appears to far outperform Node.js in this area. Finally, any requests for dynamic content or websockets will be handled by Node.js.

As is good practice, static content will be served from a separate subdomain, but I would like all remaining content (including the websockets) to be served from the main domain. The rest of this article outlines the configurations I have in place to attain the above.

To recap, the objectives are:

  • Have a single public port for both websocket and ‘regular’ data
  • Be able to optionally cache some resources using Varnish
  • Serve (uncached) static assets directly from nginx (which may be then be cached by Varnish)
  • Pass requests for ‘web pages’ to nginx, and from their proxy to Node.js
  • Pass websocket requests directly (from Varnish) to Node.js (bypassing nginx).

My server stack is

  • Varnish (v3.0.2) – port 80
  • Nginx (v1.0.14) – port 81
  • Node.js (v0.6.13) – port 1337
    • Socket.io (v0.9.2)
    • Express (v2.5.8)
  • Operating system is Amazon’s Linux (v2011.09)
    • Also tested on CentOS (v6.2)


Below is an edited version of my /etc/varnish/default.vcl. Some customizations and parts irrelevant to the topic at hand have been edited out.

#define backends and timeouts
backend default {
    .host = "";
    .port = "81";
    .connect_timeout = 5s;
    .first_byte_timeout = 30s;
    .between_bytes_timeout = 60s;
    .max_connections = 800;
backend nodejs{
    .host = "";
    .port = "1337";
    .connect_timeout = 1s;
    .first_byte_timeout = 2s;
    .between_bytes_timeout = 60s;
    .max_connections = 800;

#Removed: ACL for purging

sub vcl_recv {
    set req.backend = default;
    set req.grace = 120s;
    #set the correct IP so my backends don’t log all requests as coming from Varnish
    if (req.restarts == 0) {
        if (req.http.x-forwarded-for) {
            set req.http.X-Forwarded-For =
            req.http.X-Forwarded-For + ", " + client.ip;
        } else {
            set req.http.X-Forwarded-For = client.ip;
    #remove port, so that hostname is normalized
    set req.http.Host = regsub(req.http.Host, ":[0-9]+", "");
    #Removed: code for purging
    #part of Varnish’s default config
    if (req.request != "GET" &&
        req.request != "HEAD" &&
        req.request != "PUT" &&
        req.request != "POST" &&
        req.request != "TRACE" &&
        req.request != "OPTIONS" &&
        req.request != "DELETE") {
        /* Non-RFC2616 or CONNECT which is weird. */
        return (pipe);
    if (req.request != "GET" && req.request != "HEAD") {
        return (pass);
    #pipe websocket connections directly to Node.js
    if (req.http.Upgrade ~ "(?i)websocket") {
        set req.backend = nodejs;
        return (pipe);
    #do not cache large static files
    if (req.url ~ "\.(avi|flv|mp(e?)g|mp4|mp3|gz|tgz|bz2|tbz|ogg)$") {
    #general URL manipulation and cookie removal
    #lines 60-109 from https://github.com/mattiasgeniar/varnish-3.0-configuration-templates/blob/d86d6c1d7d3d0ddaf92019dd5ef5ce66c9e53700/default.vcl
    if(req.http.Host ~"^(www\.)?example.com"){
    #Removed: Redirect for URL normalization using error 701
    # Requests made to this path, relate to websockets - pass does not seem to work (even for XHR polling)
    if (req.url ~ "^/socket.io/") {
        set req.backend = nodejs;
        return (pipe);
    #My other PHP/MySQL sites get included here, each in its own block
    }else if (req.http.Host ~ "^(www\.)?thatsgeeky.com") {
    # part of Varnish’s default config
    if (req.http.Authorization || req.http.Cookie) {
        /* Not cacheable by default */
        return (pass);
    return (lookup);

sub vcl_pipe {
    #we need to copy the upgrade header
    if (req.http.upgrade) {
        set bereq.http.upgrade = req.http.upgrade;
    #closing the connection is necessary for some applications – I haven’t had any issues with websockets keeping the line below uncommented
    #set bereq.http.Connection = "close";
     return (pipe);

# sub vcl_pass - unmodified
# sub vcl_hash - mostly modified – added hash by content-encoding
# sub vcl_hit - mostly unmodified – added PURGE code
# sub vcl_miss – mostly unmodified – added PURGE code
# sub vcl_fetch - mostly unmodified – added set beresp.grace = 30m; and some site specific additions
# sub vcl_deliver - modify some headers
# sub vcl_error - custom error page and handle redirects for URL normalization
# sub vcl_init - unmodified
# sub vcl_fini – unmodified

Since Nginx does not handle websocket requests (although, there is a TCP module that may help with this), we cannot send websocket requests to Nginx – they must go directly to Node.js. As such, we must setup two backend definitions – one for Nginx and one for Node.js. The specific timeout parameters for each backend are a personal preference and are largely arbitrary.

As with most setups, vcl_recv is the function with the most going on. In addition to the standard parts found in the Varnish config, the above looks for websocket connections and will send them directly to Node.js (the code come directly from the Varnish documentation). It should be mentioned that I do not let Node.js serve the socket.io client. My pages call it from a different location and it is served by Nginx.


The config below is simply the section that I include for the one site – common options (from nginx.conf) are not included.

upstream node_js {
server {
    listen *:81;
    server_name example.com www.example.com static.example.com;
    root /var/www/example.com/web;
    error_log /var/log/nginx/example.com/error.log info;
    access_log /var/log/nginx/example.com/access.log timed;
    #removed error page setup
    #home page
    location = / {
        proxy_pass http://node_js;
    #everything else
    location / {
        try_files $uri $uri/ @proxy;
    location @proxy{
        proxy_pass http://node_js;
    #removed some standard settings I use

Firstly, with the upstream block, we define our backend servers. You’ll note that I have the same server listed twice. This is because of the way Nginx falls back in the event of a backend failure, and will give the request another try.

The objective with the above, is to serve all files that exist using nginx, and to proxy all other requests to Node.js. The use of the location = / block is due to the root directory existing, but wanting it handled by Node.js and not Nginx.

In order to track timings through each layer, I use a modified log command (timed, above, instead of main). Also, the IP addresses are updated so that Node.js doesn’t see all requests as originating from Nginx.

real_ip_header X-Forwarded-For;

log_format timed '$remote_addr - $remote_user [$time_local] "$request" '
                 '$status $body_bytes_sent "$http_referer" '
                 '"$http_user_agent" $request_time $upstream_response_time $pipe';

port_in_redirect off;

One of the nice things about this setup, is that all data passing though Nginx can be compressed – without needing to add modules to Node.js which will undoubtedly be slower.

Tracking a Request

Just for interest sake, it is possible to track a request through the entire server stack – I occassionally do this to track down the cause of any delays. The following request was for a login page of a Node.js site I am working on.

Logging is done with varnishncsa, using the following:

varnishncsa -F "%h %l %u %t \"%m %U %H\" %s %b \"%{Referer}i\" %{X-Varnish}o %{Varnish:time_firstbyte}x"

The logged request is as follows:

xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx - - [26/Mar/2012:12:11:14 -0400] "GET /login HTTP/1.1" 200 601 "-" 1866086403 0.006932020

Matching the XID (1866086403) to output from varnishlog, gives the full request timings:

11 ReqEnd c 1866086403 1332778274.036613464 1332778274.043595552 0.000080347 0.006932020 0.000050068

Looking at this a bit more closely, we see that Varnish took:

  • 0.000080347s from the time the request was accepted until processing started
  • 0.006932020s from the start of processing to the start of delivering (essentially backend time)
  • 0.000050068s from the start of delivery to the end of the request

The log is generated using the log format mentioned earlier that I reference with the name ‘timed‘:

log_format timed '$remote_addr - $remote_user [$time_local] "$request" '
                 '$status $body_bytes_sent "$http_referer" '
                 '$request_time $upstream_response_time';

The logged request shows up as follows:

xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx - - [26/Mar/2012:12:11:14 -0400] "GET /login HTTP/1.1" 200 613 "-" 0.006 0.006 .

We can see that Nginx took:

  • 0.006s ($request_time) in total to process the request
  • 0.006s ($upstream_response_time) of the total time was taken to obtain the response from the upstream server.

As part of my application, I have the following line (which sends the output to the file defined in access_logfile:

app.use(express.logger({format: ':req[X-Forwarded-For] - - [:date] ":method :url HTTP/:http-version" :status :res[content-length] - :response-time ms', stream: access_logfile }));

The logged response is:

xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx - - [Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:11:14 GMT] "GET /login HTTP/1.0" 200 1155 - 4 ms

From the above, it appears that Node.js took:

  • 4ms to process and return the request

Obviously the time format used by express.logger is a bit different (and I am recording less information), but the relevant data is present.

An interesting observation here is the change in protocol. The request came in as HTTP/1.1, was sent to Nginx as the same, but Nginx sent the request as HTTP/1.0. This is well documented, so not exactly a surprize – but interesting to see regardless.

Another point to note is the changing response size. The original response from Node.js was 1155 bytes. After going through Nginx it came out at 613 bytes (since it was gzipped). Finally, my VCL modifies some of the headers (not shown above) for a final size of 601 bytes.

13 thoughts on “WebSockets – Varnish, Nginx, and Node.js

  1. Pingback: WebSockets – Varnish, Nginx, and Node.js « That's Geeky | kernicPanel | Scoop.it

  2. Pingback: WebSockets – Varnish, Nginx, and Node.js | Wet Web | Scoop.it

    • Thanks for pointing that out – I’ll update it – the information in this post has drifted quite a ways from my current config (which does have req.backend). Just never seem to get around to updating the posts.

  3. Pingback: Caching responses in express - node.js Solutions - Developers Q & A

  4. Pingback: WebSockets – Varnish, Nginx, and Node.js ...

    • Functionally, it would be sufficient to pass requests directly from Varnish to node, but I include Nginx for two reasons:
      a) Nginx is actually a web server and I like to keep a web server in front of my application (it is a more typical setup, which makes the entire thing a bit more portable); I also have other types of scripts (e.g. PHP) running from the same server, which I use Nginx for – so this setup keep things consistent (and offers me more flexibility).
      b) Performance: Nginx is faster at serving static files than either varnish or node. (Of course, varnish + nginx is slower than varnish alone). Without nginx, any request for a static file will have to go through Node (if it isn’t cached – which is hopefully rare). Also, Nginx let’s you make more meaningful decisions (e.g. with try_files), and has some functionality I use (e.g. secure files authenticated through node but served through nginx).

      In actuality, my more recent setups eliminate Varnish in many cases. The newer versions of nginx support websockets natively, so the setup can be designed to work without Varnish. Nginx is also capable of some amount of caching (although, Varnish offers far more flexibility on the caching front).

  5. Hi,

    One question I have in mind is it possible to cache web-sockets from the first place?
    In my topology I have 2 Apache server(with Google PageSpeed Module) behind a HAProxy server that is connected to the internet via dual ISP connection. My users are using the side xxx.com with dynamic and static web content which at the moment is not being cached (since varnish doesn’t support SSL/TLS)

    My plan is to put varnish in the same machine where HAProxy is running, and use it (the varnish server) as a backed of the HAProxy.

    So at the end I will have something like this:

                                      Apache 1
    HAProxy(With SSL) +  Varnish  - - -  /
            /        \                   \
           /          \              Apache 2
          /            \
       Jetty          Jetty
          \            /
           \          /
            Jboss --> DB (Mongo+MqSL+Neo4j)

    This will give me nice way to cache dynamic and static connect using varnish, keep SSL using HAProxy and keep my topology clean.

    But, there is anther key server in my solution:
    I’m using Jetty (with cometd) for web-sockets implementation (I was thinking to move to Socket.io, or SockJS with Web-Stomp), that is being route via the HAProxy.

    I used Clustered Cometd via OORT and I want to understand if there is any point in caching this contents as it consider to be Real Time Data.
    The reason I’m asking is that I’m thinking to move to some CDN solution to speed up my performance, but as far as I see it – Websockets can’t be cached so the all point here is just pushing more static and dynamic content.

    Is that make sense or I’m losing here something?


    • a) As you have suggested, there is no reason that Varnish can’t cache an SSL page if you have an SSL terminator in front of it. Since you have HAProxy as your SSL terminator, it can proxy requests to Varnish over HTTP, and Varnish can return it a page that will then be served by HAProxy over HTTPS
      b) Unless you serve the same content more than once, there is no point to caching (and, in fact, caching would probably be slow things down in the event of content that is only viewed once). Typically, caching is most effective for dynamic content. In reality, Varnish is slower at serving static content than other web servers such as Nginx. However, in the case of dynamic content, where a backend would first have to generate the page before it could be served, there is the potential for considerable savings when a cached page is served. For most purposes, it would probably be most effective to implement a memory based cache (e.g. Memcached) which your application uses (as opposed to your server) for storing chunks of content that can be served over Websockets (again, only logical, if the same content is used more than once).
      c) A CDN will work great for static content (this really only holds true if you have a geographically distributed user base, as the edge servers of the CDN will be closer to your users). A CDN may have some merit for dynamic content, but only if the dynamic content is served multiple times (it is pointless to use a CDN to serve dynamic content that is unique to every page view). Keep in mind that the CDN needs to get its content from somewhere – if that is your backend server, then it will actually take longer for a request going through a CDN if the CDN first needs to ask your server for the content. It will only be faster if the CDN already has a copy that it can serve directly.
      d) As far as I know, CDNs don’t support Websockets – mostly because the content has to originate on your server, and they would just add an extra hop without any benefit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>