IP.Board compatibility?

[meto]

It caches whole website, so that next guest downloads cached one wich is actually static page (no php usage at all).

[kan3]

wow, that would be fast. Are you using this cache with IPB?

[meto]

Yes, PM with URL

[cmanns]

Originally Posted by kan3

wow, that would be fast. Are you using this cache with IPB?

We've used many caches over the years. We've specialized in high performance IP.Board applications.


The first is separate cache/image/js/uploads subdomain which you may run with LiteSpeed Cache or Varnish on separate system or same.

You can also cache the main domain however this *can* have negative effects. We mostly noticed none, however we havn't tested LiteSpeed cache in particular.

[Blair]

Originally Posted by cmanns

You can also cache the main domain however this *can* have negative effects. We mostly noticed none, however we havn't tested LiteSpeed cache in particular.

FYI, the final result is subject to change, but the current solution being tested works on the entire main IP.Board domain. Guests and logged in users.

[cmanns]

Originally Posted by Blair

FYI, the final result is subject to change, but the current solution being tested works on the entire main IP.Board domain. Guests and logged in users.

Yes this works aslong as whatever http accelerator doesn't cache changed data.

The best method for this is uncaching cookie'd requests. (Logged in users) unless the backend can check periodically every few seconds for changes (smartly, less per other things or uncaching commony requested URIs) shoutbox and such will uncontrollably cache and show stale data.

When you cache using the options IP.Board has separately and enable main domain caches for agents with no logged in cookies for boards with public data commonly requested.

This is the best method and for most boards causes very low requests. Guest requests can be uncontrollable, most logged in users don't do insane req/sec so its mostly cached.

We did Varnish over LiteSpeed on a WHM/cPanel live production system with a few dozen clients and it almost dropped the load to sub 1 and no complaints for days. We switched back with no complains, when notifying clients they did notice a large performance increase.

for us Varnish instantly will saturate the connection between client and server vs litespeed/apache/lighttpd only saturating bit by bit till it's done.

[kan3]

Hey Chris it's good to see you bro.

[cmanns]

Originally Posted by kan3

Hey Chris it's good to see you bro.

hi?

whos this lol