Compete.com tells me that ruby-lang gets about 1/10 the traffic I currently get. So your musing about the production configuration is at the heart of the question.
- Peter > From: Mohit Sindhwani <t...@onghu.com> > Organization: Viometrix | Onghu > Reply-To: <t...@onghu.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:47:26 +0800 > To: <email@example.com> > Subject: Re: [Radiant] Stories of stability > > Peter Degen-Portnoy wrote: >> Thanks, Steven, for the added perspective. >> >> What do folks consider a "high-volume" site? If I'm looking to handle 3 - 5 >> million page views monthly, which I can do with a few production Rails >> servers and a non-trivial production architecture (memcache, n-tier >> architecture, etc.), do folks think Radiant will be up to the task? >> > Well, the ruby-lang site runs on Radiant.. wonder what configuration it > uses. > > That said, if your content doesn't change too rapidly, you can increase > the cache timeout to a good large number.. my sites are not high volume > - more like niche technology sites, so I wouldn't know for sure. > > Cheers, > Mohit. > 12/24/2009 | 9:47 PM. > > _______________________________________________ > Radiant mailing list > Post: Radiant@radiantcms.org > Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ > Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant _______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: Radiant@radiantcms.org Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant