Hi guys, It does seem that I designed it poorly for apache deployment. Memcached seems like a good option. After trying it out, it's decently faster than disk, but not quite as fast as memory from the same python process, mostly because of the serialization overhead.
- Build from original data sources (slowest) - Rebuild from database with indexed tables - Cached on disk - Cached in memcache - Cached in memory (fastest) It's been working well so far, and only needs some tweaking on my production server. Thanks for your suggestions! Lars On Aug 15, 12:24 pm, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/14/07, Lars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My first thought was: I've missed a debugging flag somewhere that > > needs to be off. Here's what I roughly have: > > Have you checked the Apache directives which control how many requests > a process may server before it gets recycled? > > Remember that Apache processes do not live forever -- they serve a > certain maximum number of requests, then are killed and replaced by > new ones (which will, then, need to perform the same intensive > up-front calculation). If you need to permanently store something (or > at least, store it more permanently than what you're got now), try > memcached. > > -- > "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
