We're using disk cache. We're working under the assumption that cache gives faster performance. The tests we performed were not conclusive but we often got slightly better results when we used cache.
Is your suggestion not to use cache at all? The "leak" I mentioned is not a real leak. When Apache serves a non-cached file that is about to be cached, it first reads it in to memory. This causes the Apache process memory usage to grow by the served file size. After the file is served the memory usage doesn't shrink back. Thanks, Gadi K -----Original Message----- From: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com] Sent: 20 November 2011 15:14 To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Serving and caching large static files On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Gadi Katsovich <ga...@checkpoint.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > We're trying to set up an Apache server that would serve requests for large > static files (500MB). > > We use AliasMatch to match the request url to the actual path. > > It works fine when no caching is involved. > > However, when we do use caching, we get memory leaks the size of the served > files. What kind of caching? What's the point in caching a static file that's already on disk? How do you measure the leak? > > > > Is there a way to configure Apache to serve and cache large files without > hogging so much memory? > > > > Thanks, > > Gadi K -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
