From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerrit Huizenga Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:57:39 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: References: <20020906.113448.07697441.davem@redhat.com> Reply-To: Gerrit Huizenga Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com, hadi@cyberus.ca, tcw@tempest.prismnet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:34:48 PDT. <20020906.113448.07697441.davem@redhat.com> Content-ID: <13634.1031338659.1@us.ibm.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org In message <20020906.113448.07697441.davem@redhat.com>, > : "David S. Miller" w rites: > From: Gerrit Huizenga > 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