Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm looking for a caching for IIS similar to the Varnish.. But as Varnish is not recommended on Windows, I would like to have suggestions as what are the other alternatives that can be used for performance optimization of web applications & websites that are similar & powerful as Varnish.

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Shane Madden, mdpc, Ward, Khaled, dunxd Jan 7 '13 at 10:57

Questions on Server Fault are expected to relate to server, networking, or related infrastructure administration within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Aside from the fact that it would be horribly unsupported, why not use Varnish? (Their Wiki seems to imply that you can run it under Cygwin) – voretaq7 Jan 7 '13 at 4:56
You can use memcached. – Teoman shipahi Aug 12 '15 at 19:53
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Why do you think you need that when IIS - actually windows - has an output cache already included IN THE KERNEL (http.sys can do caching)?

Is there a real need, or is this a demonstration of you now really knowing how to program in IIS and ASP.NET because you totally did not read the documentation, including the part of the output cache?

Let me help you:

is a good start. You can cache, invalidate by parameter, do partial caching in a page (i.e. only those parts that do not change). It is all there out of the box. Never saw a need for external additional caching.

Now, maybe there IS something special that you need that does not, but bear with me - I doubt.

share|improve this answer
I think this is written in a brusque way that is neither respectful to the OP, nor appropriate for Stack Exchange's constructive Q&A style. I ain't gonna downvote you, though, because it does contain useful info. – Paul d'Aoust Jan 27 '15 at 0:32
@TomTom - We ended up using object and output cache provided by dot net, and we're happy using that. – Krunal Jan 11 at 9:33
Gratulations to that. I found it amazing in most circumstances, too. Add to that a distributed CDN (CloudFlare) and you have the tools to take a LOT of load off your server. – TomTom Jan 11 at 9:35

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.