On 22/08/07, Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add to that the fact that mem_cache seems a little less stable
overall, and I think disk_cache is the best choice for most people.
Joshua,
This is fast becoming an FAQ (or rather, frequently corrected
question), both here and on irc. Is there
On 8/22/07, Vincent Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/08/07, Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add to that the fact that mem_cache seems a little less stable
overall, and I think disk_cache is the best choice for most people.
Joshua,
This is fast becoming an FAQ (or rather,
On 8/20/07, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
I am having a heck of a time with getting mod_cache to work properly.
I am trying to have it cache a mixture of static files and proxy
generated content.
I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions.
First with mod_mem_cache I am seeing entries in
Joshua,
Thank you for the reply. I'll dig deeper into the list for the
disk_cache not storing files for the specified time.
I was under the impression that mem_cache would be faster. I had
planned on storing files that are accessed many times from a couple of
directories, ie, /xml/ or /images/
On 8/21/07, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua,
Thank you for the reply. I'll dig deeper into the list for the
disk_cache not storing files for the specified time.
I was under the impression that mem_cache would be faster. I had
planned on storing files that are accessed many times from a
All,
I am having a heck of a time with getting mod_cache to work properly.
I am trying to have it cache a mixture of static files and proxy
generated content.
I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions.
First with mod_mem_cache I am seeing entries in my logs like the
following for a URL content
