Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Actually neither of them are "caching
managers" or have any direct
role in caching.
OK. "Various monitoring tools" is sort of sufficient.
Stevertigo wrote:
> "Caching" basically just
> means keeping wiki pages in RAM so that things get fetched quickly -
> most people are not logged in so they get the same HTML
Tim Starling wrote:
This is not particularly accurate either.
OK. Well (again, just pulling this out of my ear) either its the
wikitext or HTML that is cached, and it didn't seem to me like it made
sense to reformat each page as HTML each time it was called. Granted,
HTML is bulkier and takes up more RAM (50% more?), and that probably
outweighs the load/computensity issue of doing reformatting for each
time. (Something I didn't consider, as I was pulling... )
So, given what I assume is a rather steepish ratio of casual readers
(who need standard pages) to logged in editors (who need customized
pages), I just went with the HTML and figure the rest was smoke and
mirrors.
I didn't think though about how wikitext changes all the time, and
thus handling them as HTML would probably add a static element to how
pages are refreshed. Hm.
Anyway, sorry if I was less than accurate in my explanation.
I think you mean LiveJournal.
Ah. True.
-Stevertigo
"I know I'll keep searching...