> > > > I'm not the guru, but what's different in this from how Wordpress now > > automatically caches the rendered PHP file as a static HTML file, > > which is served until the content is changed? I agree with the later > > threads that this is a "way" to accomplish the end goal -- having your > > server up and responsive -- but between static HTML and cached HTML > > derived from PHP, is there an incredibly large difference under > > reasonable (not slashdotted) server loads? > > > The caching is a vast improvement from previous versions, but still for > performance still is behind just static files. You still run in your > interpreter, access various code, caching tools, etc. For a lot of systems, > caching is enough of an improvement, but not always enough. Especially in a > distributed environment. In a good Apache2 system, that static file will > serve directly out of memory, not even hitting a filesystem, no excessive > computation, etc. And you didn't have to do any magic to set it up :)
By default, wordpress does NOT cache the pages and serve static files. You can however install the WP-Cache plugin, which does just that. We have a blog that got dugg twice (two different posts at the same time). It held fine w/ WP-cache. -Dennis /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
