Loren, As Aitor suggests, it sounds like this site could really use some caching that reminisces of Rails' page caching model.
In a non-Radiant site I have worked on recently, the entire public site is page-cached, but each page takes a long time to generate (lots of data, averaging 3 sec/page). A cron job runs about every 30 minutes that does three things after updating time-sensitive data: 1) Rename all the cached .html files to .htm (the web server has a rewrite rule to defer to .htm if .html isn't present) 2) Hit each page on a separate app-server process that isn't in the proxy pool, resulting in a cached .html 3) Remove all .htm pages This way, we never serve up dynamic pages to users. Now, I imagine one of the largest slowdowns on your site is going to be Page.find_by_url because it is recursive. Radiant could really be sped up by caching the URL in the database, which would reduce lookup time for most pages, and having the recursive method as a fallback. If you want, we can hash over the design of this optimization together (perhaps with John and Daniel) and apply it to the core. Sean Loren Johnson wrote: > I've been enlisted to take a 12,000+ article site (static .html > pages!) with 500k unique visitors a month and convert it to a dynamic > site where the owner of the site can more readily flow advertising, > among other things alongside the content. > > The HTML (not XHTML) is mostly all old bad stuff, the clean-up and > conversion of which is a separate task and discussion entirely. > > > My question for the other members of the core team and the community > at large is: > > 1. Am I crazy to be considering Radiant as the starting point for > this project? I know I will need to section-up and somewhat re-invent > the admin page tree, at minimum, but despite the size and popularity > of the site, there are not a lot of unique CMS features needed. > > It's definitely an option to go custom from ground-up and their may > be just enough in their budget to accommodate the custom route, > however because of the unique situation of this client (the site is > soon to be sold) time is of the essence and for this reason starting > with Radiant could be a valuable jump start. > > The questions in my mind now are about caching and the core > performance of Radiant under what could be significant load. I don't > have peak number of pages served per second or minute right now, but > will have those numbers shortly. > > > 2. Is there any precedence for such a thing. I seem to remember a > discussion a while back about relative site size and thought I > remembered seeing that someone is managing a 1-2k page site in it > currently. > > > _______________________________________________ > Radiant mailing list > Post: [email protected] > Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ > Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant > > _______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: [email protected] Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
