Newbie inquiry

[Thomas - Lists]

you misunderstood the original reply.

its up to *you* how you handle the caching.
memcached alone doesn't do any caching, you have to store data in the
cache and retrieve it.

if *you* put parts of the page in the cache and destroy only parts of
them if they are stale then its the way it is ;).



thomas

Jerome Macaranas wrote:

> does is it destroy all or destroy part of the cache w/c was updated?
>
> if it destroys all the cache content would it make any difference on
> the mysql cache... since the cache rebuilds it self everytime there is
> an manipulation on the data?
>
> im not trying to create hassle im just clearing some things.. : )
>
>
>
> ill put Lighttpd into consideration...
>
> tia,
>
> On 12/14/05, *Adam Michaels* <adam at digitalagemedia.net
> <mailto:adam at digitalagemedia.net>> wrote:
>
>     1. You need to destroy the cache via a delete and then rebuild it
>     with the new data. Your application is responsible for keeping the
>     cache up to date.
>      
>     2. Drop apache and use Lighttpd. It will use less memory and
>     therefore leave you with more memory to use with memcached.
>      
>
>         ----- Original Message -----
>         *From:* Jerome Macaranas <mailto:jerome.m at gmail.com>
>         *To:* memcached at lists.danga.com
>         <mailto:memcached at lists.danga.com>
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:40 AM
>         *Subject:* Newbie inquiry
>
>         Hi ALL,
>
>            Im trying to get enough details on memcached to check
>         whether it is feasible to use it on a site that is very dynamic.
>            Can anyone clear my clouded mind. :)
>            1.  If data are cached and in the event that the page was
>         updated what happens to the cache? will it be completely
>         reconstructed? or only portion of it will be replaced?
>            2.  Would you recommend memcache to sit on the same box
>         with apache with a 4G RAM resource?
>
>         thanks,
>
>