adding TTL to DirDB would not be difficult, using the filesystem's timestamps, and if the files are kept in a tmpfs, or even just deleted before the filesystem syncs, there's no disk traffic.
in my opinion, the simplicity of using the file system for persistence is most appealing. I keep repeating myself. > For example, what I need to do (at a high level) is be able to add > entries to the cache with a minimum TTL, and be able to have the ability > to reset the TTL on individual entries as need be. > > > > > Perhaps - I just think that there has to be a more efficient way of > sharing data between processes than writing it to disk. The module I > wrote was for a busy community type site where all access was > authenticated, so I spread the data across multiple db's to reduce lock > contention. To really be honest, I have never really used shared memory > much (in any programming language) so I don't really understand the main > issues - but I thought locking (in the perl module) was done with > semaphores... -- Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html
