4 ms·
I would think it would help you. Many porn sites get so much traffic, the engineers rival those of Facebook and Google.
by paulhauggis 15y ago
I would think it would help you. Many porn sites get so much traffic, the engineers rival those of Facebook and Google.
- EricPickupYP 15y agoAs much as I might like to think so, they are several orders of magnitude beyond us.
- ma2rten 15y agoIt's not just about traffic, you know. Facebook is different then most sites, because it generates different content for almost every pageview. This means much less possibilities for caching. And Google, well...
- jasonlotito 15y ago> because it generates different content for almost every pageview. This means much less possibilities for caching. That implies they are caching very little. I'm comfortable in saying that I'd be shocked if your homepage on Facebook wasn't 90%+ in cache, if not 100%. A site like Facebook wouldn't survive without caching.
- ma2rten 15y agoI am not sure how you define those percentages, but Facebook's homepage is regenerated on every pageview. Storing the entire homepage html in cache for every user would not work, because every time someone posts something you'd need to regenerate the homepage for all their friends (# of times someone posts something * avg # of friends > # pageviews homepage).
- jasonlotito 15y agoSorry, I was referring to the data, not the HTML output. Even still, you could cache components of that page. Your feed might update often, but their are many things that don't change on ever page load, and they can be cached for a long time.