Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Proxy_cache or direct static files ?

Maxim Dounin
December 18, 2013 07:44AM
Hello!

On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 05:01:25AM -0500, Larry wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I don't quite understand what I could get from caching with proxy_cache vs
> serving static files directly.
>
> Everywhere people tend to say that it is better to cache, but isn't caching
> the same as serving directly from static file ?
>
> Say that I serve home.html from a plain static html file, would I get any
> benefit to use reverse proxy + cache to serve it ?

Caching is useful when you have some resource which is costly to
generate (e.g., dynamic pages or remote resources). If you are
serving static files which are already present on the same server,
in most cases there are no reasons to use cache. In some rare
cases it may be useful though, e.g., if you have some faster
storage for cache.

--
Maxim Dounin
http://nginx.org/

_______________________________________________
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
Subject Author Posted

Proxy_cache or direct static files ?

Larry December 15, 2013 05:01AM

Re: Proxy_cache or direct static files ?

Larry December 16, 2013 05:47AM

Re: Proxy_cache or direct static files ?

Maxim Dounin December 18, 2013 07:44AM

Re: Proxy_cache or direct static files ?

Jonathan Matthews December 18, 2013 07:50AM

Re: Proxy_cache or direct static files ?

Larry December 19, 2013 09:48AM

Re: Proxy_cache or direct static files ?

Maxim Dounin December 19, 2013 10:22AM

Re: Proxy_cache or direct static files ?

Larry December 21, 2013 01:59AM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 138
Record Number of Users: 8 on April 13, 2023
Record Number of Guests: 421 on December 02, 2018
Powered by nginx      Powered by FreeBSD      PHP Powered      Powered by MariaDB      ipv6 ready