Hi! I usually don't read the posts on zope-list, but I found this one: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope/2005-September/161330.html sorry this is a bit old, but ... M. Davis, what are your benchmark figures based on? I just ran a quick benchmark on Plone's front page and found: siege -v -r 10 -c 1 http://localhost:8080/plone ** siege 2.61 ** Preparing 1 concurrent users for battle. The server is now under siege... ... done. Transactions: 10 hits Availability: 100.00 % Elapsed time: 2.43 secs Data transferred: 258630 bytes Response time: 0.24 secs Transaction rate: 4.12 trans/sec Throughput: 106432.10 bytes/sec Concurrency: 1.00 Successful transactions: 10 Failed transactions: 0 Longest transaction: 0.29 <---------------- Shortest transaction: 0.23 <---------------- then installed CPSSkins, replaced the calendar portlet with a calendar templet and placed it in the cache and I got: siege -v -r 10 -c 1 http://localhost:8080/plone ** siege 2.61 ** Preparing 1 concurrent users for battle. The server is now under siege... ... done. Transactions: 10 hits Availability: 100.00 % Elapsed time: 2.00 secs Data transferred: 247360 bytes Response time: 0.20 secs Transaction rate: 5.00 trans/sec Throughput: 123680.00 bytes/sec Concurrency: 1.00 Successful transactions: 10 Failed transactions: 0 Longest transaction: 0.23 <------------- Shortest transaction: 0.19 <-------------- which makes Plone with CPSSkins faster than Plone without CPSSkins by caching just one portlet. And this is still far above the figures you can get by caching all portlets (cf. CPSPortlets), in that case a request will not take more than 0.1 seconds to complete. Also, putting most of the page content in the RAM cache has made it possible on sites with a lot of access to minimize the zope-2.7 read conflict errors which has now be solved in zope-2.8. regards /JM