3 ms·
I don't get it. Why not serve the original content statically instead of that message? That's bound to be faster than memcache.
by jules 15y ago
I don't get it. Why not serve the original content statically instead of that message? That's bound to be faster than memcache.
- pavel_lishin 15y agoMaybe he wants to preserve commenting, or maybe getting memcached up and running is faster than generating a static copy. /me shrugs