Re: Static Site Alternative

[Robert Myers <ccrider@whiterose.net>]

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Aaron D. Turner wrote:

> Most people are going to use the search engine.  The drill down will be
> used too a lot too.  The real bottleneck for most high-traffic web servers
> is RAM not CPU.  You need enough httpd processes and enough free RAM to
> fork() your search engine without swapping.  Once you swap to serve a
> request you're hosed big time.
> 

	I can attest to this.  Whiterose is only a 486, my biggest problem
here is Disk I/O.  Ram is important as well, just take a look at
frp.cdrom.com, I beleive that is still a p200.

> Hence, let's get the site going ASAP.  We've all agreed that 6-12 months
> from now it's going to require a total rewrite anyways.  So if making the
> site more dynamic will give us a quicker go-live date, let's do it.  If we
> start getting hosed we can look into getting more hardware, some sort of
> proxy, or moving to static pages.
> 

	Can I ask sumn here?  Do you mean instead of perl scripts to gen
static pages that people hit, make php pages that hit the base directly?
I might be guessing here, although I do think either way sill take as much
time as the other.  I do not code perl, so I might be talkin out my arse
here.

-Bob 
ccrider@whiterose.net
Systems Administrator for whiterose.net
http://www.whiterose.net