Comments on: Turck MMCache for PHP http://scott.yang.id.au/2004/06/turck-mmcache-for-php/ Faith, Technology and Randomness in Life, According to Scott Tue, 06 Jul 2010 06:06:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: scotty http://scott.yang.id.au/2004/06/turck-mmcache-for-php/comment-page-1/#comment-1020 scotty Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:56:46 +0000 http://scott.yang.id.au/2004/06/turck-mmcache-for-php/#comment-1020 Cheaper - for one solution maybe. Not if your solution is deployed over thousands of sites. Hardware upgrade on that would be quite costly. And there are some instances where you just cannot scale up. Cheaper – for one solution maybe.

Not if your solution is deployed over thousands of sites. Hardware upgrade on that would be quite costly. And there are some instances where you just cannot scale up.

]]> By: Tom http://scott.yang.id.au/2004/06/turck-mmcache-for-php/comment-page-1/#comment-1015 Tom Tue, 22 Jun 2004 03:00:08 +0000 http://scott.yang.id.au/2004/06/turck-mmcache-for-php/#comment-1015 <i>However, it does not address many performance issues inside the programming logic. It provides a faster VM, but it does not make someone a better programmer. To truly tune a system for maximum performance, one still needs to write efficient algorithms, code optimised database queries, utilise static cache or even re-code the bottleneck with a compiled-to-machine-code language. Or just buy a bigger box :)</i> Most of the time, the second option is always cheaper. However, it does not address many performance issues inside the programming logic. It provides a faster VM, but it does not make someone a better programmer. To truly tune a system for maximum performance, one still needs to write efficient algorithms, code optimised database queries, utilise static cache or even re-code the bottleneck with a compiled-to-machine-code language.

Or just buy a bigger box :)

Most of the time, the second option is always cheaper.

]]>