robertmerrill at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 07:26:44 MDT 2007
On 10/4/07, Corey Edwards <tensai at zmonkey.org> wrote:
> So having your pages rebuild on every load is better than having them
> rebuild once when they change and then stay in cache on the filesystem
> (which will of course be cached by the OS in RAM)? I'm not seeing why
> that's a bad idea.
I'm not the guru, but what's different in this from how Wordpress now
automatically caches the rendered PHP file as a static HTML file,
which is served until the content is changed? I agree with the later
threads that this is a "way" to accomplish the end goal -- having your
server up and responsive -- but between static HTML and cached HTML
derived from PHP, is there an incredibly large difference under
reasonable (not slashdotted) server loads?
More information about the PLUG