alt Hacker NewsGiven the nature of git, wouldn't all that HTML be highly cacheable? I get that's not free either, but it's got to be a lot less intensive than having cgit generate it every single time.
Replies
kees99 • today at 3:01 PM
Or, html generation could be very, very fast in the first place. For example, serving static files is usually just as fast as a reverse-proxy cache.
Interestingly enough, cgit bills itself as "a hyperfast web frontend for git repositories" [0]. Alas, nothing is fast enough for the bots, it would appear.
➕ show 1 reply
Zariel • today at 2:39 PM
That was my first thought, varnish (vinyl these days) in front of the website should dramatically reduce this as the git repo should be practically static for most of the content.
➕ show 1 reply
mik1998 • today at 3:06 PM
The cache gets evicted between the times the old commits are revisited.
The issue is there's far more pages than could reasonably be stored: cgit is an old-school server-side renderer and there's a combinatorial explosion of possible pages it could render. The article calculates there's about a quadrillion different pages that could be 'crawled'