On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 22:36 +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
?? When would anons get old versions of the page? I just edited a couple of sections on wikidev.net anonymously and all changes show instantly.
Try with another browser that has no cookies set. After editing you have a session cookie which means no squid caching so far. None of the 'content' url's are purged, so all that would remain cacheable is the toc. However, at the moment it's sending "i'm cacheable" headers for the content urls that are never purged, hence out-of-date content.
Benchmark for toc-only page (uncached, but this is purged so could be cached): Requests per second: 1.06 [#/sec] (mean)
Connnection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 11 60.2 0 444 Processing: 3919 4612 316.1 4629 5247 Waiting: 3855 4606 317.7 4626 5247 Total: 3919 4623 311.8 4630 5247
A short section: ab -n 100 -H 'Accept-Encoding: gzip' -c 5 http://wikidev.net:8000/Long_testpage?action=view%5C%C2%A7ion=24%5C%C2%A7ion...
Requests per second: 0.62 [#/sec] (mean)
Connnection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 10 56.5 0 423 Processing: 3999 7930 2362.7 8804 12732 Waiting: 3999 7924 2371.0 8804 12731 Total: 3999 7940 2348.1 8804 12732
Just rendering a small section is more than four times slower than getting the full page from squid (!). I don't see how this is a performance advantage if caching is available.
Was there any discussion on this feature before? The only thing i found via Google was http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feature_requests#Collapsable_tree_in_... which doesn't seem to be related to this implementation.
All the skin stuff i've done so far (heavy use of css instead of rendering another page for every user/skin etc) is aiming at a higher cache hit ratio. Just increasing the cache hit ratio by 15% means halving the load on the apaches and the DB. This way to fold sections defeats it.
Cheers
Gabriel Wicke