On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Shawn Milochik <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Have you considered using an atomic caching server for storing the state > of > > an IPs 'throttle' count? > > It has the added benefit of giving you future support for distributed > use, > > wouldn't be as performance heavy as writing to a database, and deals with > > any race condition problems quite nicely. > > > > No, I haven't. We're not using caching otherwise, and don't have any > needs for distributed use right now. > Ah that's fair enough. I assume your webapp is single threaded?? > > And, sqlite3 in memory is ridiculously fast, so I don't believe > performance will ever be an issue there. I see you alluded to that in > your follow-up post. > I haven't benchmarked it, but it's more than fast enough for my needs. > Come to think of it, I'd imagine it's somewhat faster than using a cache backend (when taking the tcp overhead into consideration), just without the added benefits of distributed access. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django users" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
