On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:43:12 -0800 "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(dammit, I wasn't going to post again in this discussion, for the forseeable, but this wants an answer) > > If you are going to -1 something, you need to have a technical reason > for it IN THE MESSAGE. You can't assume that your reason is obvious. > In this case, I have to assume that you are worried about the file > bucket having to go through user space to be stored, as opposed to > more efficient routines handling it like a sendfile. However, > since we aren't talking about network writes in store_body, and > store_body will have to read/write the data as buffers anyway, > I don't see any justification for that veto. It was not intended as any such thing. Just a comment noting that we have an extremely simple case in which this caching strategy will degrade system performance not just a little, but by a whole order of magnitude. The lusers will love it. I'm not vetoing anything in mod_cache. I'm nowhere near familiar enough with it for that. But I do know that "I wouldn't start from here": by bypassing the normal request processing cycle, it's introduced a lot of extra complexity for a very questionable gain (would you use mod_cache to serve local, static contents?) -- Nick Kew
