On 31-ago-09, at 23:27, Stefan de Konink wrote: > Alvaro Lopez Ortega schreef: >> On 31-ago-09, at 18:47, pub crawler wrote: >> >>> Together we can help determine what Cherokee becomes (cache related) >>> and what development will be done. >> >> >> My original idea is to write a in-memory cache. Basically a fixed >> size >> cache to hold the N most requested files. It'd be a mechanism to >> reduce the load of the back-ends. >> >> There's another cache type we could implement though. It'd be more >> like a "let's mirror everything locally" cache. In this case, every >> cacheable item would be stored in a local file, and successive >> requests would use read it. It looks like the implementation >> complexity of this cache would be higher. >> >> IMO, the in-memory cache will be useful for more people, but I'd like >> to know what you guys think about it. > > What about mmaping your in memory cache? Then it is persistent over > time?
I don't think it'd be worth.. Let's see: PROS: - Persistent over reboots CONS: - Higher complexity - Lower performance Am I missing some other pro? :-m -- Octality http://www.octality.com/ _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
