no one has done any performance testing on 2.5?
what works and what doesn't in terms of caching (internal vs.
'external', ie plugin based methods)?
skimming across the web, the top future requirements always had included
better performance...
deliciousdays wrote:
With WP2.5, what is
deliciousdays wrote:
no one has done any performance testing on 2.5?
The performance bottleneck is usually the DB, and the format hasn't
really changed since 2.3. That DB format runs tens of thousands of
queries a second on WP.com, which is usually where we notice performance
bottlenecks
--
From: Matt Mullenweg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:52 AM
To: wp-testers@lists.automattic.com
Subject: Re: [wp-testers] Re: WP caching / performance
deliciousdays wrote:
no one has done any performance testing on 2.5
On Mar 12, 2008, at 10:27 AM, George Pearce wrote:
Are Wordpress Viper Cache Alpha or WP Super Cache, perhaps the
older WP-Cache2 compatible/recommendable?
WP Super Cache works perfectly, I've got it running on GPearce;
which is on 2.5 at the moment. I've not tried the others.
--
Are Wordpress Viper Cache Alpha or WP Super Cache, perhaps the
older WP-Cache2 compatible/recommendable?
WP Super Cache works perfectly, I've got it running on GPearce; which is on 2.5
at the moment. I've not tried the others.
--
Kind Regards
-George Pearce
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Gene Steinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Maybe I missed it, but is there a site that indicates compatibility
with plugins yet for this? I'm anxious to try one of the 2.5
prereleases on the lesser of two sites, but don't want to be surprised.
Ye olde
George Pearce wrote:
Are Wordpress Viper Cache Alpha or WP Super Cache, perhaps the
older WP-Cache2 compatible/recommendable?
WP Super Cache works perfectly, I've got it running on GPearce; which is on 2.5
at the moment. I've not tried the others.
I guess it is in the nature of
Mullenweg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:00 PM
To: wp-testers@lists.automattic.com
Subject: Re: [wp-testers] Re: WP caching / performance
Kirk M wrote:
Oh, BTW, I'm new here although I've posted a few times already. I should
have
done this ages ago. Really enjoying myself
Hi Kirk,
Welcome, Trimming just means that you keep just enough of the original messages
so that your reply makes sense in context, no more and no less. Just like I've
done below.
So no carriage return, hit the delete key!
HTH
Dawn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12, 2008 1:00 PM
To: wp-testers@lists.automattic.com
Subject: Re: [wp-testers] Re: WP caching / performance
Hope that helps,
Lloyd
___
wp-testers mailing list
wp-testers@lists.automattic.com
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-testers
You can just cut out the irrelevant portions of the previous message in
which you are replying to.
Semper Fi!
Hate to be a pain but as far as trimming my replies is
concerned, is it just a matter of using a carriage return
('scuse the ancient vernacular) in the proper place or is
there an
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:50 PM
To: wp-testers@lists.automattic.com
Subject: RE: [wp-testers] Re: WP caching / performance
Hi Kirk,
Welcome, Trimming just means that you keep just enough of the original
messages so that your reply makes sense in context, no more and no less.
Just
--
From: Lloyd Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:51 PM
To: wp-testers@lists.automattic.com
Subject: Re: [wp-testers] Re: WP caching / performance
By trim, he means remove any lines from the email you are responding
13 matches
Mail list logo
