Makes sense
Thanks
Posted at Nginx Forum:
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,245544,245752#msg-245752
___
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
Hello!
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:48:45AM -0500, Larry wrote:
> Ok,
>
> Now I get it right :)
>
> @Maxim : when you say faster memory storage, doesn't nginx get the result
> cached by the os itself ? And so in the ram ?
>
> What could be faster than that ?
Consider you have 100T of data on ro
Ok,
Now I get it right :)
@Maxim : when you say faster memory storage, doesn't nginx get the result
cached by the os itself ? And so in the ram ?
What could be faster than that ?
Thanks
Posted at Nginx Forum:
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,245544,245721#msg-245721
On 16 December 2013 10:47, Larry wrote
> Did i understand something wrong ?
Yes.
Proxy cache is for storing the response of an upstream HTTP server
whose requests you're proxying, so that you don't have to ask the
potentially slow(er) upstream server the next time an identical
request comes in.
Hello!
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 05:01:25AM -0500, Larry wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I don't quite understand what I could get from caching with proxy_cache vs
> serving static files directly.
>
> Everywhere people tend to say that it is better to cache, but isn't caching
> the same as serving directly f
Did i understand something wrong ?
Thanks
Posted at Nginx Forum:
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,245544,245552#msg-245552
___
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
Hello,
I don't quite understand what I could get from caching with proxy_cache vs
serving static files directly.
Everywhere people tend to say that it is better to cache, but isn't caching
the same as serving directly from static file ?
Say that I serve home.html from a plain static html file, w
