On Apr 1, 2010, at 10:37 AM, AchipA wrote: > There is some overhead, but efficiency is a disputable term - there is > certainly more overhead than hardcron, but IMO not in a way that would > affect overall performance unless you're running it on a site that has > hundreds of thousands of hits per day...
Perhaps we could change (or eliminate) the wording. How about simply 'Using softcron'? I'm curious: what is the extra overhead of soft vs hard cron? Just that it does a test on each page access? I'm guessing that's pretty cheap. > > On Apr 1, 5:40 pm, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: >> Section 4.17 (cron) mentions hard vs soft cron defaults, but doesn't say how >> to override them. >> >> Section 4.1 (cli) doesn't list --softcron >> >> The startup message for soft cron says: 'Using softcron (but this is not >> very efficient)' >> >> In what sense "not efficient"? I understand that the timing is less >> consistent, but is there really more overhead? softcron seems like a pretty >> reasonable choice if all you're doing it deleting expired sessions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en.
