Are you using Memcache? It should utilize as much of the cache as it can without ever causing a memory overflow error. If you aren't, I would highly recommend using it, it makes life easier because it just works.
Of course with only 512mb of RAM, depending on what you are caching and how much processing you are doing, this still might not help you much, but it certainly shouldn't hurt. The other thing you can do if you are still feeling like the load is too high and your memory is tight, is storing whole pages (or at least the context) in the database. This would reduce your calls to the database to one per page. The last thing I would recommend if the load is still to high is looking into putting a reverse proxy in front of apache (or whatever else you're serving python with). Nginx really reduces the weight of serving media files and then you can implement something like this: http://soyrex.com/articles/django-nginx-memcached.html without needing to pull in an entire python interpreter. Nginx can also create static files from dynamically served pages, so you could serve pages directly from disk. Those are my thoughts. Michael On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:22 AM, omat <o...@gezgin.com> wrote: > hi, > > a site of mine serves about 3,000 pages daily to its users, and about > 10,000 to crawlers. users mostly surf the active pages, that are being > updated recently, but crawlers go deeper into hundreds of thousands of > pages, which have not been modified, and probably won't be for > months. > > so i thought i have to have a large cache, holding many pages (or the > expensive pieces of pages) for long times, but when they are updated, > delete them. addition of new content usually causes multiple pages to > be removed from cache because relations between should also be updated > with new content. > > as i am short on memory (512 MB slice), and want to decrease db load, > i eliminated memcache and db cache, and setup a file system caching > with max_entries = 30000 and cull_frecuency = 10 and it quickly filled > up about 300 MB, which was expected. > > the results were unbelievably terrible. i have run into many issues, > mainly due to running out of memory, and in the end the whole system > is screwed. using no caching is doing much much better than this > setup. > > > Any suggestions for optimizing the caching is greatly appreciated. > > > -- > omat > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django users" group. > To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<django-users%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
