|
Posted by Stan Brown on March 23, 2005, 11:25 pm
Please log in for more thread options
"Pierre Goiffon" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>Sorry everyone for these useless posts :D Maybe it wouldn't be so
>useless for some non native english speakers readers who have an as bad
>english level as I have ;o)
Pas du tout inutiles! J'ai appris quelque choses de nouvelles en
lisant ce fil.(*)
En plus, il n'est pas nécessaire de vous excuser de votre anglais.
Nous tous, nous vous avons compris parfaitement. Et vous voyez
quelle salade on fait avec des tentatives en francais. :-)
(*) Is "fil" le mot juste for a thread of articles in a newsgroup?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
|
|
Posted by Pierre Goiffon on March 24, 2005, 10:16 am
Please log in for more thread options
Stan Brown wrote:
> En plus, il n'est pas nécessaire de vous excuser de votre anglais.
> Nous tous, nous vous avons compris parfaitement. Et vous voyez
> quelle salade on fait avec des tentatives en francais. :-)
:)
Thank you very, very mutch :))
> (*) Is "fil" le mot juste for a thread of articles in a newsgroup?
Yes exactly ! We use to call it a "fil de discussion"
|
|
Posted by c.thornquist on March 22, 2005, 2:44 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Geoff M wrote:
>
>> SSI (or the include function of any dynamic code generator like PHP)
>> is your friend.
>
> But it's no friend of cacheability, which can significantly impact
> server load and impair a site's response if it's used unnecessarily
> and without taking care over such issues.
>
>> If you have a "bit of code" that currently needs to be amended in
>> many places, why not replace the code in all those spots with an
>> include to a single file which will then require editing only once.
>
> Yes, and then why not build a static site once out of that source, at
> the time that you publish it to the server, instead of asking the
> server to rebuild the same stuff every time that the page is
> revisited?
>
> Both approaches have plus and minus points. I'm not saying one is
> right and the other wrong, but to give due thought to the issues
> before choosing.
>
> "XBitHack full" is one of my friends ;-)
Is that why so many sites using PHP are so slow?
I maintain a 1,500 page site using plain HTML (no separate stylesheets
even). It loads fast, but if I ever had to make changes throughout, I'd be
in trouble.
I'd like to learn more about "search & replace". I used it on a 250 page
site that I recently built, but only on my hard drive. Had to upload all the
pages after doing so. I downloaded applications that perform search &
replace on the server, but they were too complex for me to understand in a
pinch. Anyway, search & replace makes me nervous. Is there a simple,
reliable way to do it?
Thanks,
Carla
|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on March 22, 2005, 3:44 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Geoff M wrote:
> >
> >> SSI (or the include function of any dynamic code generator like PHP)
> >> is your friend.
> >
> > But it's no friend of cacheability, which can significantly impact
> > server load and impair a site's response if it's used unnecessarily
> > and without taking care over such issues.
>
> Is that why so many sites using PHP are so slow?
Possibly. It's hard to say without specific examples. There are
different ways of configuring and using PHP. But modern CPUs are
usually well up to the amount of processing involved, so, if they also
have enough memory available for the task, then the server itself
isn't the limiting factor.
But the non-cacheability can make quite a difference, if the site has
not been programmed with care. Not only because of the network
latency in fetching fresh copies of the same thing over and over
again, but the very fact that they're being fetched more often than
necessary is also putting extra load on the origin server.
Mark Nottingham has a good tutorial on this general topic -
http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/
and an online tool to help to assess sites for cacheability.
|
|
Posted by Jan Roland Eriksson on March 22, 2005, 11:36 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:44:47 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell"
>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
>
>> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Geoff M wrote:
[...]
>> Is that why so many sites using PHP are so slow?
>Possibly. It's hard to say without specific examples.
PHP used on an Apache based server is all Ok, I have never had a speed
problem in that environment.
Me thinks that "so many sites using PHP" are sourced out by some
misconfigured MS misnomer and that would count for an addition to the
already built in "feature" of slowness in MS server technology.
--
Rex
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | 'Web Test Tools List' of 300 tools updated at Softwareqatest.com | May 24, 2006, 11:41 am |
| How can I replace a large image with other large images triggered from small image icons, mouse-overs or whatever??? | July 26, 2004, 1:34 am |
| Advice re debugging techniques | April 17, 2008, 11:16 pm |
| Drop down menu vs scrollable detail rows vs frames techniques | December 19, 2005, 11:49 am |
| worse websites... | August 16, 2005, 1:30 am |
| accessing websites... | November 19, 2008, 10:22 am |
| How are websites hacked and how do you protect against it? | October 5, 2004, 2:16 pm |
| Printing large images | November 5, 2007, 8:08 am |
| Does anyone have any suggestions for synchronizing multiple websites? | March 24, 2008, 11:52 am |
Need to borrow your brain for large | December 6, 2005, 10:43 am |
|
|
|
XML Sitemap