But not a site with 10k nodes (pages), all them cached for anonymous use. Assuming 16Kb per page (generated) this would result in 156Mb of cached size. By the way, putting this cache into the filesystem, makes the database smaller... and that means faster backups. On 3/7/07, Robert Douglass <rob@robshouse.net> wrote:
64 MB will buy you a lot with memcache. All your path lookups, for example, can be memcached. Taxonomy trees, terms and vocabs can be cached in that space, too.
Fernando Silva wrote:
Drupal file caching + lighttpd server + X-LIGHTTPD-send-tempfile! http://blog.lighttpd.net/articles/2006/11/29/faster-fastcgi
Nothing will beat this, unless the system has Gb of RAM! But we all know that many hosts out there have imposed limits to 256Mb or 512Mb, being out of the question the use of memcache with more than maybe 64Mb.
On 3/7/07, Chris Johnson <cxjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't quite understand Dries remark "I'm fairly convinced that memory-based caching ... is the way forward rather than file-based caching." That remark seems to presuppose knowing every site's and host's situation (impossible) or to say that file-based caching will never provide enough performance benefit over what we have now.