Return-Path: 
 <docs-return-7898-apmail-httpd-docs-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-docs-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 89738 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2007 18:33:52 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Aug 2007 18:33:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 52676 invoked by uid 500); 22 Aug 2007 18:33:43 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-docs-archive@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 52640 invoked by uid 500); 22 Aug 2007 18:33:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact docs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:docs-help@httpd.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:docs@httpd.apache.org>
Reply-To: docs@httpd.apache.org
List-Id: <docs.httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list docs@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 52629 invoked by uid 99); 22 Aug 2007 18:33:43 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:33:43 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of noodlet@gmail.com designates
 64.233.184.233 as permitted sender)
Received: from [64.233.184.233] (HELO wr-out-0506.google.com) (64.233.184.233)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:33:42 +0000
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 50so221861wra
        for <docs@httpd.apache.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;
        b=Q7rA/N74ZJZBRkpQNoyP6ZA9eyCy27s5pv+qiAtAcKmplmsa+l2dQDV1ypWWTPvYcUg0rl5T6A+KZB3I6ScgJk3J9mn1as+KW/Rz4Xex50Xl7zwm4Vf7GYwKQrqbpq1t5Z0Uvl+FKiI4E56zKqu9YgpA40+3tptT52IcZpD1l1Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;
        b=qVzwlstP0PC2hU/krLAFPtp5lrfYCU0gpY4vaekAseSa50tdSrC66pDegC9MgzBz7bdh+kxK0VfohDCR77fvCpRiKYb5M5a0i4TXZYMqbApToGfgFifbR/4WbH8t/zW1It60VRGvI3/gEQYxl73rLFshmPN0Xz18zfkqXJAxgXo=
Received: by 10.90.105.20 with SMTP id d20mr5048961agc.1187807601348;
        Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.90.86.11 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <813716b60708221133w4ddc7271u88b56d01551cb004@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:33:21 +0700
From: "Vincent Bray" <noodlet@gmail.com>
To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Avoiding mem_cache assumptions
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

Hoi,

It's a common misconception that because mem_cache uses 'memory'
rather disk_cache using 'disk', that one should assume the former is
somehow faster.

Documenting this misconception is fraught with not wanting to say
"this sucks", so let's not say that. How about:

Index: docs/manual/mod/mod_mem_cache.xml
===================================================================
--- docs/manual/mod/mod_mem_cache.xml   (revision 567358)
+++ docs/manual/mod/mod_mem_cache.xml   (working copy)
@@ -41,6 +41,11 @@

     <p>Content is stored in and retrieved from the cache using URI based
     keys. Content with access protection is not cached.</p>
+
+    <note><title>Note</title>Don't assume that because this module caches in
+    memory it is faster than <module>mod_disk_cache</module>. Modern virtual
+    memory systems can make delivery from disk more efficient using
kernel level
+    <code>sendfile()</code> support.</note>
 </summary>
 <seealso><module>mod_cache</module></seealso>
 <seealso><module>mod_disk_cache</module></seealso>

(I should note that this 'patch' is an addition to the <summary> atop
mod_mem_cache.xml)

There are of course other issue related to per-worker caches in
mem_cache, but I don't know sendfile() from sendelbow(), so this is
the best I could come up with.

I'm not terribly diplomatic at the best of times, so is there a better
way to suggest that users try disk_cache first?

-- 
noodl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org