CODEWITHSUNDEEP
asp.net-mvc-3performanceoutputcache
Krunal
Krunal

Reputation: 3269

Reading from file on disk vs cache - what will be better?

I'm not very much sure about this, and hence looking for best practices rather then an implementation. This is indeed very much importance for us to decide, considering performance aspect.

I have an website which is having a million hits per day. Apart from CDN for hosting static contents, on website I have a mega menu which is basically a read from a static file (consider it as xml/html). So for each visitor/page view this file is hit and file read operation is performed & then it is rendered.

Now, if I store the same content of static file into output cache, the file read can be reduced. I can set it expire every hour so it stays fresh.

Will it have any performance increment, because read operation will not required for each hits? What do you think?

Update

Just to add that I'm having a very busy web site build on the top of ASP.net MVC3 C# platform using razor engine. Whatever implementation is needed, need to consider IIS7 /.net support.

Upvotes: 1

Views: 479

Answers (2)

Germann Arlington
Germann Arlington

Reputation: 3353

Caching proxy would do mostly the same job for you.
I (personally) would not use RAM disk option simply because it adds overhead of file system access (obviously faster it is faster than real FS, but still you have to read directory structure to access the file every time).

Upvotes: 1

Stephane Rouberol
Stephane Rouberol

Reputation: 4384

You could setup a ramdisk to store heavily read files. This can be done very easily on GNU/Linux and I'm told it's doable on Windows too.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions