Actually, Michael Michael MD wrote: > I would not recommend this for sites on shared servers unless they > really do need a full-featured CMS. > Speed is important .. why add bloat if its not needed? > > A mysql server in a typical ISP shared hosting environment often > struggles to handle a large number of statements per second > from hundreds of sites .. especially when some of the sites are being > hit hard by crawlers. > ..most off-the-shelf CMS do way too many lookups to show even a simple page > > Drupal, Wordpress and Joomla are very bad in this regard (doing around > 15-40 mysql lookups for each page!) > ... Xoops seems better with its file-based caching but may still be > overkill in a lot of cases.
Hmmm - this has not been my experience with Drupal... With caching turned on, the database queries are close to 0 for any given page, and frankly, as a hosting provider, I can tell you with some certainty that a) 15-40 queries per page is tiny, and will be handled in 0.0001 seconds in most cases, and b) we have servers with 100 active Drupal sites, many doing 10s of GB of traffic per month, and their performance is sub-second for nearly all pages, and certainly for all pages viewed by anonymous users (i.e. the functional equivalent to static pages) thanks to smart caching... > A lot of this waste comes from storing stats in mysql, looking up user > data, etc ... > (and in some cases attempting to use mysql even for caching! bad.. bad.. > bad..) I'm not sure I agree with you at all on this one. > If you are not using user logins then why do all those extra lookups? So that the customer can change her own content... she doesn't need to allow logins for anyone other than administrators. A decent CMS will cache pages to the extent that you'd be hard pressed to get substantially faster performance from static pages. > I think part of the problem might be that a lot of CMS developers are > not testing on busy shared servers or high-traffic sites. > (they are probably only testing on dedicated servers where they have > mysql to themselves and the bottlenecks might be elsewhere) Again, my experiences create a far different impression. > I'm not going to tell people to spend extra cash for a dedicated server > if all they want is a few simple "static" pages. If all you want (and all you're *ever* going to want) is a few static pages, that's fine, but it's also then not a problem to hand code the XHTML and CSS. If your site is going to grow, then you might as well put it into a CMS from the start. The performance overhead for a CMS like Drupal is tiny. By all means use Dreamweaver as a syntax aid (as suggested by Blake) if you can't remember these things or are a really slow typist (although I can't recommend enough taking the time to learn how to touch type - you'll never regret it)... :) Dave -- Dave Lane = Egressive Ltd = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = m: +64 21 229 8147 p: +64 3 9633733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents http://egressive.com ==== we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member =========== http://effusiongroup.com ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
