The data to be cached is going to be HTML files and are to be retained anywhere from 3 days to a week. My understanding is that memcached would not be a good solution here since if the server goes down, we lose everything.
Thank You
+1
A:
If you're caching entire pages, you could use an http-cache, such as Squid.
troelskn
2010-05-11 17:30:17
Yes that is true however need some sort of PHP API as we are caching "specific" web pages based on user preference. In our case we are treating a web page nothing more than a text file.
jini
2010-05-11 17:32:58
How do you identify these pages though? Squid can have config files that govern which pages it caches. You might be able to move your caching logic out there. For example, you could set a specific cookie and have Squid look for that.
troelskn
2010-05-11 20:26:28
+3
A:
You should try looking into memcachedb. The guys from Reddit seem to use it as mentioned in this talk and had a lot of positive things to say about it. You seem to get the simplicity of memcache, but with the solidity of disk stores.
daveslab
2010-05-11 17:32:59
Wow thanks for the article. That really helps me. Wish they had called is something else besides "memcachedDB" as the MEM in the name throws me off.
jini
2010-05-11 17:51:19
Also where does one draw the line between using something like Memcachedb and/or NO SQL databases. I guess that makes up for a question in itself.
jini
2010-05-11 17:56:45
Well, frankly, there is no difference at that level. I just depends how much functionality you want. If you wanna put in all kinds of fun stuff for your caching, you need to look at a more sophisticated solution, like MongoDB, but otherwise memcacheDB should work fine. Some NoSQL db's are fancy key-value stores, others are a little more.
daveslab
2010-05-11 23:06:54
+1
A:
Consider Zend_Cache. It will provide you a nice consistent API for cache operations. It provides a plenty-good file-based back-end, but you can swap that out for other backends as you find a need.
timdev
2010-05-11 21:19:46