On Feb 9, 2008, at 12:06 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 6:00 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Whichever is easiest. Happy to plop it in there at google. As it
has a
while to go before we should/could offer this for inclusion at httpd/
apache.
Well, it could
On Feb 9, 2008, at 18:57, josh rotenberg wrote:
Seems like switching the names around a la mod_proxy would sound
better: mod_cache_disk, mod_cache_mem, mod_cache_memcached, etc.
+1 for these sensible names. mod_proxy_* and mod_cache_* makes more
sense.
--
A poet more than thirty years
On Feb 9, 2008, at 5:36 AM, josh rotenberg wrote:
Dirk, my comments inline ...
On Feb 8, 2008 11:19 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.. snip snip ..
Ok - more or less merged a lot between both modules (2) --- al the
good bits are yours :) Does that make sense to you ?
On Feb 9, 2008 6:00 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whichever is easiest. Happy to plop it in there at google. As it has a
while to go before we should/could offer this for inclusion at httpd/
apache.
Well, it could be fleshed out in trunk - it won't be backported to
2.2.x
On Feb 9, 2008 5:36 AM, josh rotenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to collaborate on the google project let me know and I can
add you, or you can take over, or however.
Or, better yet, how about adding mod_memcache_cache (gah - crappy
name) to trunk? There's no real reason why we
On Feb 9, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 6:00 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Whichever is easiest. Happy to plop it in there at google. As it
has a
while to go before we should/could offer this for inclusion at httpd/
apache.
Well, it could
On 02/09/2008 06:10 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 6:00 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Whichever is easiest. Happy to plop it in there at google. As it has a
while to go before we should/could offer
On Feb 9, 2008 9:04 AM, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 5:36 AM, josh rotenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to collaborate on the google project let me know and I can
add you, or you can take over, or however.
Or, better yet, how about adding
josh rotenberg wrote:
Seems like switching the names around a la mod_proxy would sound
better: mod_cache_disk, mod_cache_mem, mod_cache_memcached, etc.
Ack. Pain in the ass But the man speaks sense. Really not so
happy with doing it now - even as a major bump...
My personal
On Feb 9, 2008 4:18 PM, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
josh rotenberg wrote:
Seems like switching the names around a la mod_proxy would sound
better: mod_cache_disk, mod_cache_mem, mod_cache_memcached, etc.
Ack. Pain in the ass But the man speaks sense. Really not so
On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:26 PM, josh rotenberg wrote:
grr, this cold is making me dumber than usual. the link:
http://code.google.com/p/modmemcachecache/
Shame I did not discover your code before !
Mine(1) looks fairly very similar - Except I sort of started with
apr_brigade_pflatten() as
Josh,
On Feb 8, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:26 PM, josh rotenberg wrote:
grr, this cold is making me dumber than usual. the link:
http://code.google.com/p/modmemcachecache/
Shame I did not discover your code before !
Mine(1) looks fairly very
Dirk, my comments inline ...
On Feb 8, 2008 11:19 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.. snip snip ..
Ok - more or less merged a lot between both modules (2) --- al the
good bits are yours :) Does that make sense to you ?
Hah! Then there is a lot of work to do!
Issues I am
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
On 2/6/08 1:35 PM, Albert Lash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A little off topic, but would it make sense to use a ramfs with
mod_disk_cache to get the best performance?
On linux, at least, just set cacheroot to something like /dev/shm/cache.
Same principle applies for other OS's as well.
--
Brian
if it helps at all, here was my attempt at a working
mod_memcached_cache. i've been meaning to look at it again and do some
cleanup/testing/benchmarking/etc, haven't had the chance though.
On Feb 5, 2008 11:17 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008, at 7:58 PM,
grr, this cold is making me dumber than usual. the link:
http://code.google.com/p/modmemcachecache/
On Feb 6, 2008 1:25 PM, josh rotenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if it helps at all, here was my attempt at a working
mod_memcached_cache. i've been meaning to look at it again and do some
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 ?
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:49:43PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 1:45 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Caching experts -- why do memcache and diskcache have seemingly quite
different caching strategies when it comes to storing the headers ?
E.g. the
On Feb 5, 2008 1:45 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -
On Feb 5, 2008, at 7:58 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:49:43PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 1:45 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Caching experts -- why do memcache and diskcache have seemingly
quite
different caching strategies
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
