On 10/5/07, Robert Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/4/07, Corey Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So having your pages rebuild on every load is better than having them > > rebuild once when they change and then stay in cache on the filesystem > > (which will of course be cached by the OS in RAM)? I'm not seeing why > > that's a bad idea. > > I'm not the guru, but what's different in this from how Wordpress now > automatically caches the rendered PHP file as a static HTML file, > which is served until the content is changed? I agree with the later > threads that this is a "way" to accomplish the end goal -- having your > server up and responsive -- but between static HTML and cached HTML > derived from PHP, is there an incredibly large difference under > reasonable (not slashdotted) server loads?
The caching is a vast improvement from previous versions, but still for performance still is behind just static files. You still run in your interpreter, access various code, caching tools, etc. For a lot of systems, caching is enough of an improvement, but not always enough. Especially in a distributed environment. In a good Apache2 system, that static file will serve directly out of memory, not even hitting a filesystem, no excessive computation, etc. And you didn't have to do any magic to set it up :) -- Jayce^ /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
