X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5297C3A3D54 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:06:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74922-09 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:05:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ngate.rdw.ru (mail.rdw.ru [195.42.172.4]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5242D3A3C7C for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:05:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 27155 invoked by uid 50004); 2 Nov 2004 20:05:54 -0000 Received: from 192.168.0.57 by ngate.rdw.ru (envelope-from , uid 100) with qmail-scanner-1.23 ( Clear:RC:1(192.168.0.57):. Processed in 0.048788 secs); 02 Nov 2004 20:05:54 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: borz_off@cs.msu.su via ngate.rdw.ru X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.23 (Clear:RC:1(192.168.0.57):. Processed in 0.048788 secs) Received: from senoval.rdw.ru ([192.168.0.57]) (envelope-sender ) by ngate.rdw.ru (qmail-ldap-1.03) with compressed SMTP for ; 2 Nov 2004 20:05:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 14572 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2004 20:05:54 -0000 Received: from ppp01.rdw.ru (HELO [192.168.0.7]) ([192.168.0.7]) (envelope-sender ) by senoval.rdw.ru (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 Nov 2004 20:05:53 -0000 Message-ID: <4187E864.5000703@cs.msu.su> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:04:52 +0300 From: Alexey Borzov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: ru, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marc G. Fournier" Cc: Dave Page , pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org? References: <41878616.70705@cs.msu.su> <20041102114746.R33702@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <20041102114746.R33702@ganymede.hub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200411/23 X-Sequence-Number: 5754 Hi, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > You still haven't answered any of the questions that I asked in a > private email ... Is this a time of day issue (from your two samples, it > looks like it is)? If you set it up to run hourly, what do the #s look > like for each run throughout the day? What does the loadavg look like > on the server when you are running the script? Or is the database being > slow? I tried running mirror later today: Nov 02 12:42:47 mirror [info] Mirroring finished. 423 page(s) saved, 2354 second(s) spent I also am running it now, getting the same ~5 sec per page response time and uptime command states: 7:49PM up 10 days, 4:36, 4 users, load averages: 4.00, 3.22, 3.04 The database itself does not look slow, nothing like these 5 seconds to connect / send the standard query. > Considering that Dave states above that the current script takes minutes > to generate >7000 pages, what are you doing differently that makes it so > much slower? And, why exactly are we changing from the current method > if the new method is going to require a dedicated server to run it? Yes, that's one way to ask these questions. The other way is: why are we having response times of ~5 seconds for not-too-complex pages? The only thing I'm doing differently from the current one is that I'm sending HTTP requests to get the pages. I already outlined benefits of this approach either here or in a private mail.