Posted on: 07/21/08 11:30PM
Adding memory isn't likely to be an optimization that scales very well--which is what you're seeing, of course, with further upgrade costs rising so much.
Are you putting thumbs and images on separate drives? Offloading the seek-heavy thumbnails would avoid competing with the image serving, and adding more drives should scale linearly: just split the thumbs across them evenly, on the image hash. (How far that scales depends on how many drives you can add, but drives need to scale with traffic, unlike RAM, which has to scale with the number of images.)
The search cache is very cachable as it doesn't change as often as you think.
You mean people search for the same stuff often enough that caching random images is actually useful?
I was getting complaints with FDC being slow.
That's odd; I've never seen any complaints of moe being slow. (It's complicated a bit by the mirror, which is a bit slow for me, but faster for EU folks.)
By the way, this cramped little input box could be twice as big or so ...