On 2013-03-22 10:45 AM, "Tyler Romeo" <tylerro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Brian Wolff <bawo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Some people have claimed that CACHE_DB might even slow things down compared > > to CACHE_NONE when used as main cache type (cache db is still better than > > cache none for slow caches like the parser cache). Anyhow you should do > > profiling type things when messing with caching settings (or any > > performance settings) to see what is effective and what is not. > > > > -bawolff > > > > Wouldn't be surprised. ;) The only problem is that with CACHE_NONE, many > things (specifically, throttling mechanisms) won't work since the cache > isn't persistent across requests. > > *-- * > *Tyler Romeo* > Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 > Major in Computer Science > www.whizkidztech.com | tylerro...@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
That would be a mediawiki bug though. Does throtling actually work with cache_db now? I remember it used to only work with the memcached backend. Anyways if that's been fixed, throtling should be changed to use CACHE_ANY so it actually works in all configs. -bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
