On 8/22/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22/08/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Add to that the fact that mem_cache seems a little less stable
> > overall, and I think disk_cache is the best choice for most people.
>
> Joshua,
>
> This is fast becoming an FAQ (or rath
On 22/08/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Add to that the fact that mem_cache seems a little less stable
> overall, and I think disk_cache is the best choice for most people.
Joshua,
This is fast becoming an FAQ (or rather, "frequently corrected
question"), both here and on irc. Is t
On 8/21/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> Thank you for the reply. I'll dig deeper into the list for the
> disk_cache not storing files for the specified time.
>
> I was under the impression that mem_cache would be faster. I had
> planned on storing files that are accessed many time
Joshua,
Thank you for the reply. I'll dig deeper into the list for the
disk_cache not storing files for the specified time.
I was under the impression that mem_cache would be faster. I had
planned on storing files that are accessed many times from a couple of
directories, ie, /xml/ or /images/ in
On 8/20/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
>
> I am having a heck of a time with getting mod_cache to work properly.
> I am trying to have it cache a mixture of static files and proxy
> generated content.
>
> I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions.
>
> First with mod_mem_cache I am seeing e
All,
I am having a heck of a time with getting mod_cache to work properly.
I am trying to have it cache a mixture of static files and proxy
generated content.
I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions.
First with mod_mem_cache I am seeing entries in my logs like the
following for a URL content gene
