On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 11:05, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:18:42 +0900, Richard Kilmer <rich / infoether.com> wrote:
> > Last week we upgraded the line that RubyForge is on, and in the beginning
> > had pretty dismal performance.  Last Thursday our ISP tweaked the link and
> > performance *seems to be* really good.  I was wondering if folks that have
> > used RubyForge over the weekend (for Web, downloads, CVS, etc) can give me
> > their thoughts...direct emails to me would be fine if we want to keep this
> > traffic off-list.
> 
> I found CVS performance acceptable. The website, however, is typically
> slow. The problem, I think, is not so much the actual speed of the
> server or the line, but that it looks like the pages are highly
> complex and not cached (and neither are the images?) in any way. 

Hm.  There's a bit of caching involved - we run mod_php (vs PHP as a
CGI), and GForge has a i18n cache thingy that serializes all the strings
to a BLOB rather than parsing the i18n file for each request.  

Eventually I might set up one of those PHP accelerator cache gizmos
(like Turck MMCache) which keeps the compiled scripts in memory rather
than reloading them for each request.  Which would be nice.

Yours,

tom