On Thursday 31 May 2007 09:03:32 Christian Markwart Hoeppner wrote: > AFAIK, the bottleneck tends to be the database, so a cache solution like > memcached should make the deal. Think of a 256Mb cache for 10 seconds > maybe.
Yes, the database is generally the main bottleneck these days. memcached is definitely on my radar. > Of course, the hardware should be able at least to serve that amount of > static pages, and maybe you should think about running the database on > another box, and link them with a proper lan. Currently we have three web server machines behind a load balancer, all of which talk to one MySQL database on another machine. We also have a separate machine for the copious media involved. Of course, the load is mitigated by the (expensive!) Akami off-site caching. > Though I have not ever experienced such a traffic, so this is pure > theory. Thanks for the response! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
