> Am 19.04.2015 um 15:16 schrieb jb <justinbe...@gmail.com>: > > At least in my experience unless your most used static files exceed in size > your available RAM, or are changing, they are effectively cached by the OS > anyway. >
Normally, yes. Hence the reason why phk wrote Varnish, when he saw what squid was (and still is) doing... But is that the case with NFS, too? I thought there was some caching, too. But I’m not sure. > So storing them on a ram disk is really doing the same or worse job than just > letting the OS store them and serve them from its file cache memory pages. > Plus the OS has the advantage of knowing which are less frequently used and > can be purged. Yep, that’s why I was asking. If his data-set was _very_ big (in the large multi-TB region) and he had a couple of small SSDs to cache stuff, while at the same time the size of SSDs was about the size of the most requested files, it /could/ make sense. But OTOH, you could also just install FreeBSD and use the SSDs as L2ARC and let the OS do the rest ;-) Even the usefulness of L2ARC is often questioned by people familiar with the matter… OS caching is _very_ hard to beat. _______________________________________________ nginx mailing list nginx@nginx.org http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
