On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 19:37 +0100, Jakub Narebski wrote: > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, J.H. wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 12:41 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 02:44:42PM -0700, Jakub Narebski wrote: > >>> > >>> This could be much simplified with perl-cache (perl-Cache-Cache). > >>> Unfortunately this is non-standard module, not distributed (yet?) > >>> with Perl. > >> > >> I think somebody who actually needs this can be bothered to install a > >> CPAN perl module. This should probably not enabled by default anyway. > > > > The people who need the caching are also likely those who are most > > averse to using things that don't either come with their distribution or > > aren't easily and readily available in something like an extras > > repository or a very well trusted contrib repository. I can at least > > vouch for one large site that needs this that doesn't install things via > > cpan for a lot of different reasons. > > Actually Cache::FileCache, which is part of CacheCache distribution, > should be available in contrib or even extras repository. I have > installed it as perl-Cache-Cache RPM (1.05-1.fc4.rf) on my Aurox 11.1 > (which is old Fedora Core 4 based distribution), from Dries RPM > repository (part of FreshRPM now, IIRC). That would be fine, I don't think the larger sites would have issues finding a copy than. > > The problem is that at least according to what documentation of other, > never CPAN modules says Cache::FileCache is slow, as it always serialize > using Storable (Storable should be part of perl distribution). That makes it much less interesting unfortunately. > We can always install local copy alongside gitweb... > > > P.S. When searching CPAN for existing modules for caching and CGI > caching I have found Cache::Adaptive::ByLoad which does what > caching-gitweb does, and some solutions in newer caching interfaces, > either CHI or Cache which try to avoid thundering horde problem. Interesting - my have to take a look at that. > P.P.S. Does kernel.org use memcached, or some kind of web cache > (reverse proxy cache) like Varnish or Squid? No - doesn't buy us anything really unfortunately. And since I'm doing caching inside of gitweb itself having multiple layers of caching just makes things more complicated, adds unnecessary latency to updates, etc. - John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
