A little off topic, but would it make sense to use a ramfs with mod_disk_cache to get the best performance?
On Feb 5, 2008 5:24 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 02/05/2008 07:45 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > Caching experts -- why do memcache and diskcache have seemingly quite > > different caching strategies when it comes to storing the headers ? E.g. > > the cache_object_t * is populated with the status/date/etc data in > > memcache - but not in disk-cache. Is this work in progress or subtle > > design ? > > But mod_mem_cache never restores the status (see comment mod_cache.c:288) :-). > I think the difference is because cache_object_t is the data structure that > mod_mem_cache actually stores in the cache to keep this data (in fact a > pointer > to the cache_info data) around whereas mod_disk_cache serializes the > cache_info from cache_object_t > data and writes it to disk. Once mod_disk_cache reads back the data from the > disk it populates > the cache_info field in cache_object_t again with the deserialized data > (see open_entity and file_cache_recall_mydata). > > > > > I am trying to understand (got a working mod_memcached_cache.c* -- and > > cannot quite get the right VARY behaviour). > > As others mentioned mod_mem_cache did not receive the same love as > mod_disk_cache. > So I am not quite sure if VARY even works correctly with mod_mem_cache. > > Regards > > Rüdiger > > -- My Blogs: http://www.docunext.com/ http://www.albertlash.com/
