On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 4:54 PM, PAILLART Frederic <Frederic.PAILLART@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Joshua, > > Thanks a lot for your answer. > I was not aware that the disk cache is more performant than mem cache. > > I'm using worker MPM and I've configured my apache server as follow : > ServerLimit 4 > ThreadLimit 502 > StartServers 1 > MaxClients 2008 > MinSpareThreads 25 > MaxSpareThreads 1024 > ThreadsPerChild 502 > ThreadStackSize 100000 > > My idea was to maximize the number of threads sharing the same heap to take > all benefits of the memory cache module. > In my context, I have only few objects, but big ones (iso files). > It's why my feeling was to use this memory module and such configuration. > > Do you think really that is a bad idea ?? In the context of the current state of the mem cache, yes, I do consider that a bad idea. The mem cache is not well tested. And in addition, on systems with good buffer caches, the disk cache will be able to share one memory/buffer cached object across all threads and processes and use zero-copy IO (sendfile) to deliver it to the network. > > I'm preparing a patch to correct the mem module bug, and writing a new > cache module based on shared memory. > Do you think that such new module will be useful for the community ? Possibly. You'd need to show that it actually outperformed the disk cache in some scenarios. It's a topic you should definitely bring up on the dev list rather than here. Joshua. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|