[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Tux vs Apache!!!

"Kent Sandvik" <sandvik excitehome net> writes:

>    > > Speaking of dynamic content, if you write a system where you have for
>    > > example a PHP framework that emits most of the html code
>    > (and that's usually
>    > > not a bottle neck compared with image serving and such),
>    > then you even avoid
>    > > the disk I/O hits, resulting in many cases in faster serving of web
>    > > content.
>    >
>    > For any webserver where this would be an issue, you'd have enough
>    > memory that almost all content was in cache anyway.
> It depends, remember we are talking about dynamic content

No, you were the one talking about using dynamic content instead of
standard HTML pages.

> and there's a point where caching will not help (speaking of seeing
> the piles and piles of Cacheflow boxes over at Excite...), where
> especially database caching is doable, but very icky based on
> transient data. --Kent

If you look at tux, it will actually do some serverside caching of
dynamic content based on cooperation with the userspace programs
generating such content. From the tux.README

   But dynamic content is becoming a larger and larger part of the
   web, and TUX provides a way to cache dynamic content as well.
   TUX modules (which can be build in kernel space or in user space;
   user space is recommended) can create "objects" which are stored
   using the page cache.  To respond to a request for dynamic data, a
   TUX module can send a mix of dynamically-generated data and cached
   pre-generated objects, taking maximal advantage of TUX's zero-copy
   architecture.  (Kernel-space modules are currently the only modules
   capable of making use of TUX's SSI support; that will change in the

Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]