devel at muhlesteins.com
Fri Oct 5 20:31:20 MDT 2007
> > 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 :)
By default, wordpress does NOT cache the pages and serve static files.
You can however install the WP-Cache plugin, which does just that.
We have a blog that got dugg twice (two different posts at the same
time). It held fine w/ WP-cache.
More information about the PLUG