I'am trying to cache static files on my server using varnish cache. I configured varnish to cache files with image extensions (.jpg, .png etc.). After that I open my website and debug it with browser developer tools and check load time of all images on my site and there is no difference in load time when I use varnish or not. There is a "HIT" in X-Cache entry in response header so images are available in my cache right? Any idea what can I doing wrong?
Ps. I'm using nginx as a backend server
Varnish shoudln't have a real impact on static files, especially when they're located on a SSD. Very heavy frequented sites may be an exception, particulary when the data is stored on a (slow) HDD. Here you have a huge amout of I/O which can be highly reduced by caching the images in the ram with Varnish. But these might be some special cases where caching of static files make sense. For nginx is also noticeable that this is a very fast webserver which is very good at delivering static files.
The main purpose for Varnish is HTML generated by some server-side backend like PHP, ASP.NET, and other languages which are designed for this task. Compared with serving static files it's very time-sensitive to generate dynamic content: The backend hat to work for example on database-querys which are very common in web-applications today or parsing templates. Wordpress is a widespread CMS and also a good example for this: Several 10k of php-code are executed on a single request and depending on the amout of plugins 100 database-querys and more are no exception.
So there are a lot of things to do for the server - for every request. For you as a site-owner this has the following effects:
The loadtime of the page increases which will result in to problems when its too high:
Visitors are not very patient and they're going to leave your page when they're thinking it's not fast enough. A online-shop which is making $100k per day can be loss up to $2.5 million per year by a delay of 1 second (see https://blog.kissmetrics.com/loading-time/ for more information)
As a result of this its not unexpected that Google is using the loadtime as an indicator for your ranking (see http://www.shoutmeloud.com/google-started-ranking-websites-based-on-load-time-and-speed.html)
Depending on the amount of visitors it can cost you money for more or more powerfull servers
Varnish can store the HTML generated by a backend in the RAM or on a hard drive. Especially with a SSD the latter make sense. Depending of the structure and use of your site, Varnish will at least improve the speed of your page and maybe also save money because less (powerfull) servers will do the job.
When Varnish is used as fronted for dynamic-generated content, you'll notice a noticeable difference. Depending of the application even a big difference. I configured varnish for a vBulletin based forum and could improve the page load time about 5 times.
Summarizing you should focus on caching dynamic pages instead of static stuff like images or clientscript because in most cases the webserver is already good enough to deliver those things. When static content is really slow, this can probably improved by using a CDN. Or maybe your webserver is not well configured for optimal speed. Perhaps there is no lifetime defined for images as example. This can have a negative impact on performance, especially on larger ones. But without further about your application and configuration its not possible to investigate the performance-issue and give concret tipps how this can be enhanced.
