WordPress.org

Ready to get started?Download WordPress

Forums

[resolved] [Plugin: W3 Total Cache] Hostname:port / IP:port (23 posts)

  1. jaypster
    Member
    Posted 4 years ago #

    Was previously using WP Super Cache but been recently having issues with large traffic on my site so I want to try out W3 Total Cache. Asked my hosting provider to install Memcache on my server and when I tried installing W3 Total Cache, I got these errors:

    Page caching is not working properly. Memcached server(s): localhost:11211 may not running or not responding. This error message will automatically disappear once the issue is resolved.

    Minify is not working properly. Memcached server(s): localhost:11211may not running or not responding. This error message will automatically disappear once the issue is resolved.

    Database caching is not working properly. Memcached server(s): localhost:11211 may not running or not responding. This error message will automatically disappear once the issue is successfully resolved.

    Just wanna ask how I can find out the right hostname:port / IP:port to use for the plugin? Is there a way to check or do I need to ask my hosting provider for it? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

  2. Frederick Townes
    Member
    Posted 4 years ago #

    Your hosting provider should have provided it. Keep in mind that unless you have a multiple server configuration memcached is not the best caching method for all cases.

  3. ericr23
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    I installed memcached and got this error, too, even though phpinfo() showed it to be running. I fixed it by following the instructions under W3TC's installation tab to properly initialize it. (It's a standalone program rather than an extension like APC.)

    I remember reading at some point that memcached would be better than APC for the object caching -- is this true? I don't have multiple servers, but I do have multiple WordPress installations (in a VPS), all running W3TC. I'm using APC for database caching and memcached for object caching.

    (I'm not using the other features because I'm not worried about speed so much as CPU and memory usage.)

  4. ericr23
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Revision (bug?): Setting all 4 WP installations to use memcache for object caching cause all but 1 to be blank. I changed 3 to use APC, leaving the busiest one to use memcached. Maybe I should change its database caching to memcached, too?

  5. Frederick Townes
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    I remember reading at some point that memcached would be better than APC for the object caching -- is this true?

    No idea where you read that, it's not true. All things are relative.

    Revision (bug?): Setting all 4 WP installations to use memcache for object caching cause all but 1 to be blank. I changed 3 to use APC, leaving the busiest one to use memcached. Maybe I should change its database caching to memcached, too?

    None of the caching engines have been changed significantly in some time, so I don't understand what bug you mean.

    Object caching creates lots of slabs in memcached and you could simply be having excessive cache misses or any number of things that are hard to guess without debugging. If you can your best bet is to give each type of cache it's own memcached instance if for some reason you are compelled to use memcached for your case.

  6. ericr23
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Sorry for the confusion: the revision I meant was of my earlier statement of using memcache. Thanks for the reply.

  7. Frederick Townes
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Ok, did I answer your question?

  8. ericr23
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Configuring memcached is beyond my capabilities, I think. In the end, although W3TC did speed things up quite a bit, the overhead proved to be too much and I have disabled it, since we really needed to cut down RAM and CPU usage. I did, however, copy the browser cache settings as a starting point for the main site htaccess file, for which I thank you.

  9. @ericr23 The best way to cut down on RAM and CPU usage would be to enable page caching using disk enhanced.

    For Memcached to work you have to have the Memcached module installed (which sounds like you do) and the Memcached server installed which you can do following the Memcached (Daemon) installation instructions in the plugin.

  10. Frederick Townes
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    @c3mdigital is right, page caching itself is likely the best way to free more resources on your server. While the cache is being built, you will have CPU usage just as you would while not having caching. Use the cache priming feature then move on to tune the user experience of the site by using other types of caching.

  11. sandbergs
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Hi,
    I also have a single dedicated server, I received the same error as above with memcache and so now I'm reverting to use APC.

    I have a question abotu c3mdigital's post - "The best way to cut down on RAM and CPU usage would be to enable page caching using disk enhanced."

    is that correct - the most efficient caching from the perspective of RAM and CPU would be disk enhanced?
    Any idea of the relative benefits/deficiencies of the various caching methods? I.e. APC is more memory/CPU intensive but is also faster?

    Thanks

    Thank also to Frederick for not only creating a great plugin but for taking the time to respond to questions in this forum.

  12. Frederick Townes
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Operating systems are designed to work with files on the disk (for the purposes of this conversation). The benefit of memory caching is great for lots of cases, but without writing a book. Using disk enhanced page caching puts the performance bound of your server with apache (and the efficacy .htaccess directives you have) instead of on PHP which is further (down) the stack (and therefor slower).

  13. sandbergs
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Thanks Frederick, I will just try them both and see what works.

  14. Frederick Townes
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Any luck?

  15. sandbergs
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    APC seems to provide better response.
    From pingdom.com
    APC: initial page load : 1.2-1.6 seconds
    Enhanced Disk: 1.6-1.8

    I haven't done enough iterations to check this thoroughly but initial impressions favor APC (at least in a non-stressed scenario).

  16. sandbergs
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    note the above is the page load of my blog homepage only.

    Overall using W3TC page loads decreased from around 5.5 - 6 seconds to 1.7 - 2.2 seconds. Biggest single factor seemed to be CDN implementation, but improvement is pretty widespread.

  17. Frederick Townes
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Mileage varies based on numerous factors, but those results sound that of the Litespeed web server.

  18. Frederick Townes
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Mileage varies based on numerous factors, but those results sound that of the Litespeed web server.

  19. sandbergs
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    It's with apache but
    - The 1.2-1.6 seconds I mentioned is just the actual serving of the initial page from the server, it does not include the full load of the web page with images, css, scripts, etc. But it's the most relevant as far testing the page caching (right?).
    - The full load time 2.2 seconds is testing on pingdom, which doesn't seem to completely traverse the javascripts and load all dependencies. it seems relevant for testing w3, which can only optimize the load from my server.
    - On webpagetest.org my total load time is around 5 seconds, down from around 8 seconds prior to w3.

    most of the remaining load is from adsense and blogads. I did try to add those to minify, but that didn't work out too well (I had to try). Adding google analytics to minify is also a bad idea..

  20. Frederick Townes
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    It sounds like your server is either under-powered of fundamentally mis-configured.

  21. sandbergs
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    I've tried loading a static html page the same size as my wordpress main page (40 kb) and the page load is also about 1.6 seconds - 0.5 to connect, 0.7 to first byte, 0.4 to last byte.

    How long do you think this should take??

    (thanks for your input here)

  22. Frederick Townes
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    0.7s to first byte is quite high, I presume your testing on localhost? There are other issues with your server that have nothing to do with W3TC.

  23. sandbergs
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Thanks Frederick.

    Testing was done using the pingdom web page test tool at http://www.pingdom.com/tools

  24. Frederick Townes
    Member
    Posted 3 years ago #

    Try switching to the twentyten theme and doing the same time to first byte test with disk enhanced page caching already primed (visit the page while logged out prior to the test).

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic