gallir

Yes, very nice, didn’t know it, didn’t find it.

It’s the same idea (and already better implemented). I’ll check it and send them patches.

Thanks.

My god, forget the question, at least WP software sends trackbacks just after the article is public (well, my measures are no so precise, but can check the source code).

So, I’ll post the plugin after testing it.

https://mnm.uib.es/gallir/posts/2005/11/10/499/

Possibly I’ll implement gzip compatibility in version 2.1. But there things that must be taken in consideration and I’m not sure yet what is the best option, so I decided to stabilize and hard test this version before implementing a feature that I’m not sure what’s the best approach. For example:

1. A server that reay needs wp-cache has serious problems with CPU usage, not bandwidth.

2. Zipping or unzipping html contents consumes CPU, so both versions must be stored. Or select the most frequently used, do most of clients accept gzipped?

3. In any case, the performance of wp-cache will be negatively affected. In the “cache serving” (i.e. more filetesting and md5 generation, which is no so cheap) or during generating a page the first time.

Ideas? Recommendations? (please do it at https://mnm.uib.es/gallir/wp-cache-2/ )

Possibly I’ll implement gzip compatibility in version 2.1. But there things that must be taken in consideration and I’m not sure yet what is the best option, so I decided to stabilize and hard test this version before implementing a feature that I’m not sure what’s the best approach. For example:

1. A server that reay needs wp-cache has serious problems with CPU usage, not bandwidth.

2. Zipping or unzipping html contents consumes CPU, so both versions must be stored. Or select the most frequently used, do most of clients accept gzipped?

3. In any case, the performance of wp-cache will be negatively affected. In the “cache serving” (i.e. more filetesting and md5 generation, which is no so cheap) or during generating a page the first time.

Ideas? Recommendations? (please do it at https://mnm.uib.es/gallir/wp-cache-2/ )

To apoorv:

> gallir: when i say static publish i understand that certain things like comments and user data will still be dynamic. Please have a look at blogspot and it will be more clear what i mean. The comments part is dynamic in blogspot but your blog entries are all static htmls.

And the advantages over how wp-cache manages static files are… ?

> All i am saying is that it would have been GREAT if i had the ability to publish static pages.

It is “almost” what wp-cache allows to.

>Even in static publishing, i could use all those features that you mentioned

No. With static pages you cannot –for example– store users’ form data as wp [and wp-cache] does .

> I think one can always debate this but the fact remains that static pages served by apache will any day be faster than any sophisticated cacheing engine.

Nice, and? HTML 3.01 is faster to parser than XHTML and CSS. man pages are even cheaper.

But the point of software is to save human efforts, not CPUs. That’s to say, if you use WP and want to save lot of CPU without losing (well, almost) any dynamic feature including users’ preferences, use WP-Cache, which provides order of magnitud improvements (in the same order as static pages).

If you don’t like WP and want other blog software that produces static pages and hardly publish any comment in “real time”, go ahead… Save CPU time, waste yours ??

PS: I really don’t understand your reasoning. WP gives you lot of nice and useful features, WP-Cache bring the response time –and cpu usage– down to “almost” as static pages’ response time. And everything for free –in every sense–. But, yeah, you are arguing about the difference between “almost” and “same” [time]. Strange, to say the least.

Yes, WP-Cache will give you the same advantages of static files without losing the advantages of dynamic ones.

I have last trunk versio, update seconds ago, wp-atom.php send html tags () in the summary. It should be plain text.

BTW, I’m sorry for those that got in troubles due to the chmod bug.

Hi, I just released Beta2, which avoid those “chmod” problems (which must be a bug in hostings’ server. Did yoy try just renaming the dir and creating a new one?).

2005-05-06: 2.0-beta2
– removed paranoic chmod’s
– check for cache file consistency in Phase1 several times
– addded option to prevent cache based on user-agents
– added size in KB to every listed file in “cache listing”

Yes, basically checking that directory, but also you can check it directly from the browser. Check the 1 or 2 lines ate the end of the html source.

Sorry, forgot the changelog.

Changelog:

2005-03-25: 1.5.4 Fixed a stupid regression, it was creating lot of semaphores. Sorry.

2005-03-24: 1.5.3 Changed SCRIPT_NAME to PHP_SELF as Kieran suggested

2005-03-23: 1.5.2 It autodetect semaphores, if they are no available, it uses flock.

2005-03-22: 1.5.1 Check for buffer size, if zero, don’t process it. gallir

Important: vesion 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 fixed a couple of showstoppers. Upgrade it please, you will get also flock() if semaphores does not work in your server.

https://mnm.uib.es/gallir/posts/2005/03/12/178/