Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Channels (Was: Lugnet for beginners)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Mar 2000 23:19:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
971 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> > So, to answer Jeremy's question: The issue of disk space is moot because
> > CGI output isn't actually cached (not at lugnet.com anyway). If some other
> > server downstream (say, a proxy server) is caching it, that's a *MAJOR*
> > problem which needs to be fixed and is likely to have been broken for many
> > many moons.
>
> Okay, I'm confused. Please see my response at
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=4869
>
> which refers to a conversation we had last May:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/faq/?n=269
>
> In particular, I'm confused about "transparent caching", which I understood
> to be a function on LUGNET, rather than a proxy or the client.
OH, I see what you mean now. No, the "transparent caching" (meaning internal
intermedia results only -- not external results) is not a function of the
server. It could be, and probably someday will be (if it needs to be), but
it isn't that way now. From the other thread,
"By 'transparent caching' I mean that the server could (if it sees that it
would save significant CPU cycles) choose to cache the final HTML output
pages it creates so that next time they're requested, they can be pulled
from the cache rather than actually regenerating them. (Typically, this
would mean improving the HTTP response time, say, from 1/10 second to 1/100
second on such pages under a heavy load.) And this would be transparent to
the user because the URLs would be identical whether the page is generated
on-the-fly or pulled from the cache."
In that scenario, perhaps 100 MB (or 1 GB, whatever would be needed) of disk
space would be allocated to an LRU cache. The only purpose of it would be to
speed up page generation times in a way which would only make a difference to
the server under a very heavy load. In terms of disk space, it would be an
LRU cache with a maximum upper bound on disk space, so disk space wouldn't be
an issue by definition. I haven't written this caching function yet because
it's still a long way from being necessary.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LUGNET Channels (Was: Lugnet for beginners)
|
| (...) Okay, I'm confused. Please see my response at (URL) refers to a conversation we had last May: (URL) particular, I'm confused about "transparent caching", which I understood to be a function on LUGNET, rather than a proxy or the client. Cheers, (...) (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
63 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
