[wp-hackers] caching doesn't work?
ryan at boren.nu
Thu Feb 2 06:47:05 GMT 2006
Nathan Ollerenshaw wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Nathan Ollerenshaw wrote:
>> Can someone else do some ab's against 2.0.1 and compare it with 1.5
>> running wp-cache? I'd like to know if I'm the only one seeing a
>> difference here.
> Actually, wp-cache seems to work under 2.0.1. I had no idea.
> Requests per second: 3.42 [#/sec] (mean)
> Time per request: 292.455 [ms] (mean)
> Requests per second: 170.70 [#/sec] (mean)
> Time per request: 5.858 [ms] (mean)
> I thought WP_Object_Cache obviates the need for other caching systems
> ... but it doesn't seem to make a difference performance-wise whether
> it is on or off, though looking at what stats() gives you, it seems to
> be 'working'.
> Aaaany way, mucked with this too much... just hoping this is useful for
The object cache can't compete with a full static caching system like
wp-cache, nor is it meant to. In my ab benchmarks, the persistent
object cache offered a marginal performance improvement over running
without persistent caching. The benchmarking was done on a couple of
shared hosting setups. On my personal servers, I saw slightly better
performance, depending on the amount of disk caching. The real
advantage of the cache is that it is pluggable. Thus you can use APC or
memcached backends. As for the default backend, on some hosts it simply
doesn't buy you much. It all depends.
More information about the wp-hackers