On Jan 4, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
There's probably not much benefit from caching filehandles if you
still have to read the files anyway. The best thing to do would be
to port to a more mature templating system. Short of that, caching
the templates in memory (just in a hash, not in a shared cache like
the ones above) will give the biggest performance boost.
Agreed.
Using the filesystem handles as you described would actually be
detrimental -- aside from the fact that you still have to read the
files , you're looking at a lot of read/write on the memory related
to the files -- on a per child basis. If you've got a single class
handling it with a single variable, figure that you're going to
consume memory representing the largest file you'll be reading -- per
child. A lot of caching optimizers I've seen will store data in a
string that is md5(file) -- which means you can have a var per file,
per child -- which is a lot.
I'd strongly suggest to cache the files into memory at server start
so that they're shared by all the children. If you need something
quick, just create a class to manage 'reading' files that stores the
data into a md5( /path/to/file ) variables on startup, and returns a
ref to the string as needed. shouldn't take more than 30minutes to
implement on the trickiest system.
// Jonathan Vanasco
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| FindMeOn.com - The cure for Multiple Web Personality Disorder
| Web Identity Management and 3D Social Networking
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| RoadSound.com - Tools For Bands, Stuff For Fans
| Collaborative Online Management And Syndication Tools
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
