[wp-hackers] wp-cache2 performance (was apache 2.2.2 upgrade)

[Brian Layman]

David, that is an excellent explanation, and good fodder for the earlier
mentioned codex entry.

Marks explaination of the WP2 cache starting with the "It caches date
frequently.." sentence would fit nicely after your WP2 paragraph.
Concluding that it should only be used on dedicated servers - and not on
a non-dedicated/shared host server.

I'd like to ask a similar question about WP-Cache2.  Is there any reason
why a blog should not run WP-Cache2?  

I know this is a basic functionality question, but does it invalidate
the cache correctly when an article is edited?
______________________________________________
Brian Layman 
http://www.TheCodeCave.com


-----Original Message-----
From: wp-hackers-bounces at lists.automattic.com
[mailto:wp-hackers-bounces at lists.automattic.com] On Behalf Of David
Chait
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 11:57 AM
To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] wp-cache2 performance (was apache 2.2.2
upgrade)


Just so we're clear (not just you and me, but people who don't know this

stuff):  WP2 and WP-Cache are NOT 'caching the same way', but are
entirely 
different caching systems (unless someone snuck WP-Cache's code into 
WP2.0.3...).

WP2 stores an 'object cache', basically the results of certain queries
on 
the database.  In that sense, it's really a MySQL cache.

WP-Cache/Staticize is an output-buffering system, which captures the
results 
of the dynamic page generation to a static PHP file on disk, and on 
subsequent requests sees the static data is there and just spits it back
out 
and exits (before the major WP code has to load, before the DB gets hit
--  
well maybe once or twice...).

Those are two very different approaches.  Again, each could be heavily 
dependent on system configuration, to the level that if a system were 
configured a certain way, and a particular type of test were run, they
could 
look approximate equals.  I wouldn't be shocked if with a really fast 
machine, lots of ram, an opcode cache, and a big MySQL query cache,
NEITHER 
one would show an order of magnitude improvement.

Oh, and using lighttpd (or commercial speedy-server equiv) instead of 
apache. ;)

-d

----- Original Message ----- 
Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:56 AM,  Angsuman Chakraborty wrote:
|
|> Otherwise, I'd be shocked that loading a cache file from disk (which
should
|> be in disk cache/memory for frequent data) takes longer than 
|> processing
the
|> main query, plus running the various transformation code, plus 
|> plugins, plus...  Just wouldn't make physical sense based on the code

|> execution. Well, again, unless disk is slow and cpu is fast -- AND 
|> maybe you have an opcode cache running, which would significantly 
|> impact performance.
|
|You are forgetting WordPress 2.0.3 also does caching the same way as
wp-cache 2. So it is
|really a comparison between caching systems.

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers