On 2013-03-22 10:45 AM, "Tyler Romeo" <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Some people have claimed that CACHE_DB might even slow things down
compared
> to CACHE_NONE when used as main cache type (cache
db is still better
than
cache none for
slow caches like the parser cache). Anyhow you should do
profiling type things when messing with caching settings (or any
performance settings) to see what is effective and what is not.
-bawolff
Wouldn't be surprised. ;) The only problem is that with CACHE_NONE, many
things (specifically, throttling mechanisms) won't work since the cache
isn't persistent across requests.
*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
That would be a mediawiki bug though. Does throtling actually work with
cache_db now? I remember it used to only work with the memcached backend.
Anyways if that's been fixed, throtling should be changed to use CACHE_ANY
so it actually works in all configs.
-bawolff