| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 |
| From: | Gerrit Huizenga <gh@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:57:39 -0700 |
| Cc: | Martin.Bligh@xxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, tcw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, niv@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | Your message of Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:34:48 PDT. <20020906.113448.07697441.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Gerrit Huizenga <gh@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
In message <20020906.113448.07697441.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, > : "David S. Miller" w rites: > From: Gerrit Huizenga <gh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:19:11 -0700 > > TUX can optimize dynamic content just fine. > > The last I knew was that it could pass it off to another server. Out of curiosity, and primarily for my own edification, what kind of optimization does it do when everything is generated by a java/ perl/python/homebrew script and pasted together by something which consults a content manager. In a few of the cases that I know of, there isn't really any static content to cache... And why is this something that Apache couldn't/shouldn't be doing? gerrit |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |