Is memcached the best - if not which cache?

[.Ian]

Looking to possibly add a cache on the server for our forums - 1.7 million posts if that makes a difference.

Before I start on that road, I need to know which is the best to opt for with IPB 3.1.X

Thanks.

[Biker.GA]

I've had better results with xcache. vBulletin and memcache didn't play well together at times, so I've always compiled xcache into Apache. Works well with IPB as well.

[.Ian]

Okay, thank you.

Will have a look at xcache

[Gary.]

xCache and BUSY forums = DEADLY.

People need to realise that xCache is made so it takes the load from the CPU by using the memory to process things, Good part about this is, The CPU is nothing, Yet your memory will double or even more, Your page loads will obviously increase as the CPU is low, Meaning APACHE and such will function more quickly.

[Biker.GA]

xCache and BUSY forums = DEADLY.

Then your server wasn't set up properly.

[Gary.]

Then your server wasn't set up properly.

so, 8 servers all had the same fault ? It's common sense, WIKI the name.

with xCache your using more memory to cover the CPU usuage.

Maybe your community is not big enough to know the difference so you will not see any changes, Do benchmark test's before and after and I can guarentee that you will see the memory increase.

I have ran several test on high end dedicated servers, xCache report a benchmark speed of 0.7 where as eAccelerator does is at 0.2.

When running bench - the max MB per process eaccelerater used was 23.1MB where as xCache is 46.5MB - Results were the same on 6 servers we run - and 2 other server what are shared. All roughly same output, So you can clearly see that it has a higher memory footprint.

I shall not go in to details with all the junk and segmentation faults xcache did... But.. hense the reaon it was built based on lighthttpd LOLOL