<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: WP-Cache Somehow Ineffective?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nslog.com/2006/12/19/wp-cache_somehow_ineffective/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nslog.com/2006/12/19/wp-cache_somehow_ineffective</link>
	<description>The Weblog of Erik J. Barzeski</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:40:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erik J. Barzeski</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2006/12/19/wp-cache_somehow_ineffective#comment-32215</link>
		<dc:creator>Erik J. Barzeski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:58:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/2006/12/19/wp-cache_somehow_ineffective/#comment-32215</guid>
		<description>[quote comment=&quot;32213&quot;]&quot;Some hosts like &#8230; MediaTemple grid, and others&#8230;&quot;[/quote]

FWIW, the site is currently hosted on a MediaTemple (dv) plan due very soon for an upgrade to (dv)3. Still, this is interesting information.

I&#039;ll probably leave WP-Cache installed and enabled because, if nothing else, processor and memory usage is probably lower serving static files from the disk than dynamically generated files.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="quote_header"><a  href="http://nslog.com/2006/12/19/wp-cache_somehow_ineffective#comment-32213">Lloyd Budd said</a> on December 19, 2006:</p>
<blockquote cite="http://nslog.com/2006/12/19/wp-cache_somehow_ineffective#comment-32213"><p>
"Some hosts like &hellip; MediaTemple grid, and others&hellip;"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>FWIW, the site is currently hosted on a MediaTemple (dv) plan due very soon for an upgrade to (dv)3. Still, this is interesting information.</p>
<p>I'll probably leave WP-Cache installed and enabled because, if nothing else, processor and memory usage is probably lower serving static files from the disk than dynamically generated files.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lloyd Budd</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2006/12/19/wp-cache_somehow_ineffective#comment-32213</link>
		<dc:creator>Lloyd Budd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/2006/12/19/wp-cache_somehow_ineffective/#comment-32213</guid>
		<description>It is as likely as Daniel describes. Matt Mullenweg in &lt;a href=&quot;http://comox.textdrive.com/pipermail/wp-hackers/2006-December/009836.html&quot;&gt;[wp-hackers] 5 minutes to a faster blog&lt;/a&gt; wrote:

&quot;Some hosts like Dreamhost, Powweb, MediaTemple grid, and others mount all user files via NFS, which generally will mean going directly to the DB is often faster than using the file-based caches. (I could be wrong, but this is one of the reasons we turned off caching by default.)&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is as likely as Daniel describes. Matt Mullenweg in <a  href="http://comox.textdrive.com/pipermail/wp-hackers/2006-December/009836.html">[wp-hackers] 5 minutes to a faster blog</a> wrote:</p>
<p>"Some hosts like Dreamhost, Powweb, MediaTemple grid, and others mount all user files via NFS, which generally will mean going directly to the DB is often faster than using the file-based caches. (I could be wrong, but this is one of the reasons we turned off caching by default.)"</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Jalkut</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2006/12/19/wp-cache_somehow_ineffective#comment-32134</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Jalkut</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:06:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/2006/12/19/wp-cache_somehow_ineffective/#comment-32134</guid>
		<description>One possible source of the phenomenon could be that your disk access is slower than your DB access. I&#039;ve heard of situations like this, particularly where disks are NFS mounted to the host that does the actual serving.

At least your dynamic times look pretty fast to start with!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One possible source of the phenomenon could be that your disk access is slower than your DB access. I've heard of situations like this, particularly where disks are NFS mounted to the host that does the actual serving.</p>
<p>At least your dynamic times look pretty fast to start with!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

