public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Alexey Borzov <[email protected]>
To: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org?
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:26:26 +0300
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

Hi,

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> That's why mirrors are pulled from http://www.postgresql.org, nor are 
> they pulled using what I'd guess you are using ( wget? ) below, but 
> using rsync ... hasn't been for years now ...
> 
> In fact, over the next little while, http://www.postgresql.org will 
> actually be pointing to an RR DNS entry, and not even the 'base server' 
> ... I've just gotta sit down and update the DNS generation scripts for 
> this ...

Uh, seems I was unclear about what I was doing.

I understand of course that the site is mirrored via rsync, but consider the 
following: the site which resides in CVS is just a few PHP scripts, to have 
something to rsync you first need to *generate* the static pages. And here comes 
the problem: page generation is outrageously slow.

In current version special scripts are used to generate static pages, but these 
are terrible hacks, f.e. you have to make the same change to design both in the 
dynamic page and the mirroring script. But they maybe run in acceptable time, I 
don't know, ask Dave.

For the next version I just wrote a generic mirroring script behaving like wget 
but taking into account some specific needs (like i18n). The plus is that you 
don't need to change this script *at all* if you add pages or even completely 
redesign the site.

But now it looks as if generation of full static website will take several 
hours. And no, this has nothing to do with network latency, the mirror 
generation script was run locally.

Marc, page generation times of 3+ seconds are only acceptable if you do some 
extremely complex database queries in them, think reports. This is definitely 
*not* the case with the code of postgresql.org, my experience tells me that 
modern hardware can happily churn 5-10 of such pages *per second*. Thus: either 
hardware is completely inadequate or the servers are overloaded.

view thread (60+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org?
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox