On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 09:10 -0700, Jeff Anderson wrote: [...] > I am running memcached, which does seem to help my sites go faster, but > it isn't helping the memory footprint go down (obviously.)
Although memcached is usually "the answer" to a lot of caching issues, it does have that obvious requirement of using memory. There's partially conflicting requirements there -- if your site is so big and heavy that the only cache that will work is memcached, then you simply can't run it on a box with insufficient memory. Fact of life. That's the bad news. The good news is that that's probably not going to be the case. Try switching to the file cache. You can set a maximum number of objects in the cache (max_entries) as a form of resource management. I use the file cache on pointy-stick.com, since it's fairly RAM-limited for all the things it does (for similar $$$ reasons, I only have one box, and it has database and webserver on the same machine there, since it's just a play space) and it certainly helps performance whilst not chewing up any more RAM than is available. (Btw, recent experience suggests being Slashdotted isn't what it used to be, so we need a new euphemism. With the file cache, the box was barely breathing. I know plenty of sites running Django installations that get more traffic in 24 hours than Slashdot sent out to me. Although I doubt I saw the full brunt of the Slashdot effect, it was *very* peaky and the cache completely did its job.) Regards, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
