Hi Joshua, Thanks a lot for your answer. I was not aware that the disk cache is more performant than mem cache.
I'm using worker MPM and I've configured my apache server as follow : ServerLimit 4 ThreadLimit 502 StartServers 1 MaxClients 2008 MinSpareThreads 25 MaxSpareThreads 1024 ThreadsPerChild 502 ThreadStackSize 100000 My idea was to maximize the number of threads sharing the same heap to take all benefits of the memory cache module. In my context, I have only few objects, but big ones (iso files). It's why my feeling was to use this memory module and such configuration. Do you think really that is a bad idea ?? I'm preparing a patch to correct the mem module bug, and writing a new cache module based on shared memory. Do you think that such new module will be useful for the community ? Regards Fred On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Frederic Paillart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm using mod_mem_cache to cache iso files provided by tomcat backend > server (using mod_http_proxy). > During the first client download, the iso file is stored into this cache. > If this client stops prematurely the download, the cache contains an > incomplete part of this iso file. > Consequently, for all other requests from all clients, the iso file will > be wrong. > Of course, we have the same behavior for any kind of content (jpeg, > html, ...). This doesn't directly answer your question, but in general, you should be aware that the disk cache is much more stable, and very-often more performant than the memory cache. Unless you have a very good reason to use the memory cache, you should try the disk cache instead. Joshua.
