Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 28956 invoked by uid 6000); 20 Nov 1997 22:08:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 28950 invoked from network); 20 Nov 1997 22:08:07 -0000 Received: from radar.catch22.com (root@204.62.130.34) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 20 Nov 1997 22:08:07 -0000 Received: from Radar.Catch22.COM (james@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Radar.Catch22.COM (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA10371 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:02:26 -0800 Message-Id: <199711202202.OAA10371@Radar.Catch22.COM> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Want to add file caching to Apache In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:47:04 GMT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:02:26 -0800 From: James Dornan Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org > On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Marc Slemko wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Ben Laurie wrote: > > > > > Igor Tatarinov wrote: > > > > It is relatively easy to get a high hit ratio (>80%) in a Web server > > > > cache (see for example, http://www.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu/~tatarino/pubs/static.ps > > > > you don't need to read it entirely, just look at the graphs) > > > > > > This does not agree with a study Digital did (admittedly that was of > > > proxy caches). If I remember correctly (and it's entirely possible I > > > don't), they got < 40% hits. > > > > I think that is a critical difference. > > > > Consider your 2 meg porn site that gets a million hits a day. A cache > > would certainly help that. A chache would also allow web pages served from a slow long term storage device or an NFS mounted file system, to server commonly hit pages faster. > > does it need help ? :-) > > serving static content is pretty trivial and has almost no overhead > on reasonable hardware. > > I've got a 586 Pentium 166mhz doing >20 static file requests per second > with 90% idle cpu and a load of ~0.2 . It also acts as a mailing list > server and nameserver when it gets bored. > > I'm not knocking the idea of caching but do wonder if it's a solution > to a relatively unimportant problem. Are there better bottlenecks to > take a shot at widening ? For the wider customer base it is not important, but for some high volume sights this would be a boon. > > -- > Rob Hartill Internet Movie Database (Ltd) > http://www.moviedatabase.com/ .. a site for sore eyes. -- -- James Dornan --