Blogware recommendations?

[Jason Hall]

On 10/5/07, Robert Merrill <robertmerrill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?


The caching is a vast improvement from previous versions, but still  for
performance still is behind just static files.  You still run in your
interpreter, access various code, caching tools, etc.  For a lot of systems,
caching is enough of an improvement, but not always enough.  Especially in a
distributed environment.  In a good Apache2 system, that static file will
serve directly out of memory, not even hitting a filesystem, no excessive
computation, etc.  And you didn't have to do any magic to set it up :)

-- 
Jayce^