Memcached vs. static pages

[pf shineyear]

hi, maybe this can help you www.ncache.org

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Adam Zell <zellster at gmail.com> wrote:

> For zero-copy I/O:
> http://wiki.codemongers.com/NginxHttpCoreModule#sendfile
> For serving static content:
> http://wiki.codemongers.com/NginxHttpGzipStaticModule
>
> Note that sendfile won't help if utilizing HTTPS.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Philip Murray <pmurray at open2view.com>wrote:
>
>> On 4/03/2009, at 4:47 PM, Daniel Rhoden wrote:
>>
>>  Hopefully this is a simple question to answer.  Is there any performance
>>> benefit of going to the trouble of setting up memcached for static pages?  I
>>> guess the question is, does nginx have its own form of storing frequently
>>> requested static resources, or does it read from the hard drive each time is
>>> serves those requests?
>>>
>>> My gut tells me nginx has something already built in to optimize requests
>>> for static pages without the complexity of memcached.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Nginx (to my knowledge) doesn't have such a facility, nor does it need
>> one. The VM system of the operating system you're using will cache oft
>> accessed data in memory, thus it won't always be read from disk.
>>
>> So you're experiencing high disk IO with just static pages, the best thing
>> you can do in the short term is add more memory (which Memcache would need
>> otherwise anyway)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Adam
> zellster at gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nginx.org/pipermail/nginx/attachments/20090304/cf0bd128/attachment.html>