httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <>
Subject Re: cache trouble (Re: [vote] 2.1.9 as beta)
Date Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:35:35 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On November 3, 2005 8:44:02 PM +0100 Ruediger Pluem
> <> wrote:
>> I also agree with this. While I understand the performance benefits from
>> the developer perspective, I fear the confusion from the user and
>> administrators perspective. Having a clear configuration is not only
>> about having non-expert
>> users getting it work but also to ease the job of expert administrators
>> to understand what they configured a year or so after they did :-).
> In my performance analyses that I did when redoing mod_cache last year,
> a substantial part of the time in httpd was spent in all of the hooks
> prior to the handler.  Things like BrowserMatch (which do regex's) are
> ridiculously expensive.
> So, moving the cache to a regular handler is not a minor performance
> penalty - it's a major one.  And, probably to the point where there's
> *no* performance increase for even having a cache - unless you are
> combining it with a backend proxy.  -- justin

Or any other Dynamic source, like CGIs, PHP, etc.  This can still be a
major win, it just depends on your environment.  This is why it should
be configurable.  To get the best out of caching, you need local knowledge.


View raw message