John Timney \(Microsoft MVP\)
5/12/2005 4:50:00 PM
It dfepends on what performance metrics you need to achive, but by far the
fastest would always be static html, as there is no route through the
pipeline for this.
Regards
John Timney
ASP.NET MVP
Microsoft Regional Director
"djmc" <djmc@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41979380-D199-46A2-8E1C-8881CB6415AB@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> To improve the performance of my site, which would be best:
> 1) Output caching my pages
> 2) dumping pages to html and overwriting the html files whenever there are
> changes.
>
> My data changes about every 2-3minutes for the first 2 hours, then about
> every 15-30mins the remaining 24hours. Then everything pretty much just
> needs to be archived after that.
>
> I have already integrated output caching and Cache API. I then decided to
> write a process to generate html files for my records. At first this
> seemed
> useful for long term archival purposes as well as search engine purposes,
> but
> now I''m wondering if html files are in any way a replacement for Output
> Caching.
>
> I haven''t tested the performance of this yet. Does anyone anticipate any
> locking issues if I''m trying to rewrite a previously generated html file
> while X amount of people are requesting the file at the same time?
>
> -Thanks!