Thanks Glen,
At this point, I use the linux file directories as my CMS. My website isn't
that popular and the webpages/images etc are not cached. From time to time,
I have thought about restructuring the content...it isn't a blog, Django
looked like it would require me to learn a new programming language, Joomla
also looked like too much overhead.
I use Apache "includes" and write raw HTML. I have been considering
converting my content into a single editor wiki. However, as I have my
updates back to 1997, part of me wants to incorporate that history too,
then it all gets too big, but I think I can start using a separate
directory for the images and this would improve performance.
Peter did you mean can or can't create a new link to the second directory?
[email protected] wrote:
You can't create a new link in that directory.
Marghanita
Glen Turner wrote:
In all seriousness, it's simple enough to run up Apache with the
workload you think you want (even if the filenames are nonsense and the
file contents all identical). So do that. Then you can do your capacity
planning with numbers rather than assumptions.
The point of a CMS isn't to quickly serve files. It's to easily
administer content. Everyone runs a cache in front of their CMS, and the
CMSs themselves are designed to work that way. There isn't much
difference in serving speed between the cache and Apache.
Having said that, it's amazing how many these "small percentages"
whittle away performance. We serve about 8TB a day from one machine
running Apache simply because we don't run any fanciness. But you're not
really in that class of content serving, so I'd serious think about the
efficiency-to-you of a CMS with a serving cache.
-glen
--
Marghanita da Cruz
Ramin Communications (Sydney)
Website: http://ramin.com.au
Phone:(+612) 0414-869202
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
