Peter J. Schoenster wrote:
> If I'm using Apache::DBI so I have a persistent connection to MySQL,
> would it not be faster to simply use a table in MySQL?
Probably not, if the MySQL server is on a separate machine. If it's on
the same machine, it would be close. Remember, MySQL has more work
Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> The performance? I don't remember the exact figure, but it was at
> least several times faster than the BerkeleyDB system. And *much*
> simpler.
In my benchmarks, recent versions of BerkeleyDB, used with the
BerkeleyDB module and allowed to manage their own locking,
Hey James --
> >One way to think about it is this: MySQL stores its data in
> files. There
> >are many layers of code between DBI and those files, each of which add
> >processing time. Going directly to files is far less code, and
> less code is
> >most often faster code.
>
> MySQL also stores
"Jesse Erlbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi Peter --
>
>> > The morale of the story: Flat files rock! ;-)
>>
>> If I'm using Apache::DBI so I have a persistent connection to MySQL,
>> would it not be faster to simply use a table in MySQL?
>
>
>Unlikely. Even with cached database connections
Hi Peter --
> > The morale of the story: Flat files rock! ;-)
>
> If I'm using Apache::DBI so I have a persistent connection to MySQL,
> would it not be faster to simply use a table in MySQL?
Unlikely. Even with cached database connections you are probably not going
to beat the performance o
On 21 Aug 2002 at 2:09, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> Now using good old Fcntl to control access to simple "flat files".
> (Data serialized with pack("N*", ...); I don't think anything beats
> "pack" and "unpack" for serializing data).
>
> The expiration went into the data and purging the cache wa
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We are investigating using IPC rather then a file based
> structure but its purely investigation at this point.
>
> What are the speed diffs between an IPC cache and a
> Berkely DB cache. My gut instinct always screams 'Stay Off
> The Disk' but my gu
Not in the MS house that I am living in right now :^(
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Ian Struble wrote:
> > And just to throw one more wrench into the works. You could load up only
> > the most popular data at startup and let the rest of the data get loaded
> > on a cache miss.
Jie Gao wrote:
> There are cases in which it is desirable to expire an entry which
> hasn't been used for a certain period of time; authenticated sessions
> data, for example.
Okay, so you're looking for a session module rather than a cache.
Apache::Session doesn't handle expiration, but you cou
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Jie Gao wrote:
> > I wish some of these modules would be able to "touch" cached data so that
> > it would expire cache entries on "last-accessed" rather than on the time
> > the entries were created.
>
> Why? People used to do that with cached beca
Jie Gao wrote:
> I wish some of these modules would be able to "touch" cached data so that
> it would expire cache entries on "last-accessed" rather than on the time
> the entries were created.
Why? People used to do that with cached because they had limited space
and wanted to purge the cach
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:12:29 -0400
> From: Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apache::Session - What goes in session?
Ian Struble wrote:
> And just to throw one more wrench into the works. You could load up only
> the most popular data at startup and let the rest of the data get loaded
> on a cache miss.
>
> That is one technique that we have used for some customer session
> servers. It allowed each server t
; >
> >
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >08/20/2002 10:54 AM
> >
> >
> > To: Tony Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, md
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > cc: Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAI
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:Re: Apache::Session - What goes
>in session?
>
>
>We do see some slowdown on our langauge translation db
>calls since they are so intensive. Moving to a &
at's how I
understand the theory to work anyway.
Josh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
08/20/2002 10:54 AM
To: Tony Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, md <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apach
Thanks, you just saved us a ton of time.
Off to change course ;)
J
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:12:29 -0400
Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>We are investigating using IPC rather then a file based
>>structure but
>>its purely investigation at this point.
>>
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We are investigating using IPC rather then a file based structure but
> its purely investigation at this point.
>
> What are the speed diffs between an IPC cache and a Berkely DB cache. My
> gut instinct always screams 'Stay Off The Disk' but my gut is not always
> r
Thanks...you've given me plenty to work with. Great
explination. This is good pragmatic stuff to know!
__
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
md wrote:
> I haven't looked at the cache modules docs yet...would
> it be possible to build cache on the separate
> load-balanced machines as we go along...as we do with
> template caching?
Of course. However, if a user is sent to a random machine each time you
won't be able to cache anything
We are investigating using IPC rather then a file based
structure but its purely investigation at this point.
What are the speed diffs between an IPC cache and a
Berkely DB cache. My gut instinct always screams 'Stay Off
The Disk' but my gut is not always right.. Ok, rarely
right.. ;)
John-
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Currently we are working on a 'per machine' cache so all
> children can benefit for each childs initial database read
> of the translated string, the differential between
> children is annoying in the 'per child cache' strategy.
Sounds like you want
We do see some slowdown on our langauge translation db
calls since they are so intensive. Moving to a 'per child'
cache for each string as it came out of the db sped page
loads up from 4.5 seconds to .6-1.0 seconds per page which
is significant.
Currently we are working on a 'per machine' cac
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 06:54:01PM -0700, md wrote:
> I can definitely get it all from the db, but that doesn't
> seem very efficient.
Don't worry about whether it *seems* efficient. Do it right, and then
worry about how to speed that up - if, and only if, it's too slow.
Premature optimisation i
--- Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a few ways to deal with this. The
> simplest is to use the
> "sticky" load-balancing feature that many
> load-balancers have. Failing
> that, you can store to a network file system like
> NFS or CIFS, or use a
> database. (There are
md wrote:
>We are using a load-balanced
>system; I shoudl have mentioned that earlier. Won't
>that be an issue with caching to disk? Is it possible
>to cache to the db?
>
There are a few ways to deal with this. The simplest is to use the
"sticky" load-balancing feature that many load-balancers
--- Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Current page name and id are never stored in db, so
> >different browser windows can be on different
> >pages...
> >
>
> I thought your session was all stored in MySQL. Why
> are you putting
> these in the session exactly? If these things are
md wrote:
>I don't think "global" was the term I should have
>used. What I mean is data that will be seen on all or
>most pages by the same user...like "Hello Jim"
>
Okay, don't put that in the session. It belongs in a cache. The
session is for transient state information, that you don't want
--- Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> md wrote:
> That doesn't sound very global to me. What happens
> when users open
> multiple browser windows on your site? Doesn't it
> screw up the "current
> page" data?
I don't think "global" was the term I should have
used. What I mean is d
Thanks though. That was succinctly put.
Could you go back in time and tell me that a year or two ago?
That would be great, thanks again.
-Josh
:)
> Things like the login status of this session,
> and the user ID that is associated with it go
> in the session. Status of a particular page
>
md wrote:
> Currently I'm putting very little in the session
Good. You should put in as little as possible.
> what I am putting in the session is more "global" in
> nature...greeting, current page number, current page
> name...
That doesn't sound very global to me. What happens when users ope
Hello md --
> I'm using mod_perl and Apache::Session on an app that
> is similar to MyYahoo. I found a few bits of info from
> a previous thread, but I'm curious as to what type of
> information should go in the session and what should
> come from the database.
One thing to watch out for is the
32 matches
Mail list logo
