Re: [WebDNA] v7 success story

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2012


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 107913
interpreted = N
texte = The capacity is about the same: if you have a single website on a single = VPS or dedicated server, you will be able to handle approx the same load = with 6.2 or with 7 WebDNA 7.0 allows you to use very fast and light webservers like = lighttpd: this webserver can handle without effort two to three times = more simultaneous hits than apache: apache is RAM hungry, usually = includes a lot of modules and the http transactions are heavier than = with lighttpd for instance. Lighttpd with WebDNA 7.0 would probably be = faster than apache with WebDNA 7.0 or 6.2. Another point is if you run several websites on a single box, WebDNA 6.2 = will handle all of them and if one website is buggy or takes all the = resources, then WebDNA 6.2 might slow down, hang or even crash. If it = crashes, it crashes apache too. If you run one WebDNA 7.0 copy per website, a buggy or hungry website = will just slow or crash its WebDNA copy. It will not crash apache, it = will not crash the other WebDNA copies. You would be able to fix the = problem by just working on the faulty website, without holding the = service for your other customers. Also, by monitoring the CPU load (using the "top" command), you would = immediately be able to "see" what website is taking more resources than = the others, and what is the real RAM usage per website. Finally, there is no need to restart WebDNA if it crashes: apache (or = any other webserver software) takes care of it. - chris =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D WebDNA Software Corporation 16192 Coastal Highway Lewes, DE 19958 On Jan 4, 2012, at 19:34, William DeVaul wrote: > What is the capacity for WebDNA 6 versus 7 in terms of load? I have = wondered if my server was too busy for WebDNA 6 to handle.=20 >=20 > Bill >=20 > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thierry Almy wrote: > We're using version 7 since a few weeks and I really like the product. >=20 > I also like the many times discussed fcgi solution. > We had performance problems in the past, heavy load on a few vhosts = brought us waiting times up to 5 seconds per page, for all vhosts, not = just the ones with heavy load, because with v6 a single webdna process = is responsible for all vhosts. >=20 > Having the ability to split the load on many separate webdna processes = will solve this problem. >=20 >=20 > I moved our CMS to v7, took me two days of programming, but only = because we used global databases to store informations about which CMS = modules to serve for each client, versions installed and a copy = protection system of all our CMS clients. We solved this problem with a = databases on an own vhost, all our CMS systems are exchanging = informations with this global database using CURL commands. > So there's no more need for global databases in our case. >=20 > All the other functions worked just perfect as they did before. My = concerns about incompatibility were absolutely unnecessary. > (excluding the [thisurl]-tag discussed in another thread in this list) >=20 > And it's even possible to serve v6 and v7 sites on the same server, = just make sure you use different suffixes for v6 and v7. > Because we wanted to have .tpl for v6 and .dna for v7 and I had to = make some changes to the v6 administration. >=20 >=20 > During the next weeks we'll move a few more sites with heavy load to = v7. >=20 >=20 >=20 > At this point I'd like to put a big THANK YOU into this list, thank = you Chris, thank you community! > This product and its further development saves our a... and it's worth = a lot more than it costs ;-) >=20 >=20 > Thierry--------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- This message = is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To = unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: = http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: = support@webdna.us Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [WebDNA] v7 success story (William DeVaul 2012)
  2. Re: [WebDNA] v7 success story (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2012)
  3. Re: [WebDNA] v7 success story (William DeVaul 2012)
  4. [WebDNA] v7 success story (Thierry Almy 2012)
The capacity is about the same: if you have a single website on a single = VPS or dedicated server, you will be able to handle approx the same load = with 6.2 or with 7 WebDNA 7.0 allows you to use very fast and light webservers like = lighttpd: this webserver can handle without effort two to three times = more simultaneous hits than apache: apache is RAM hungry, usually = includes a lot of modules and the http transactions are heavier than = with lighttpd for instance. Lighttpd with WebDNA 7.0 would probably be = faster than apache with WebDNA 7.0 or 6.2. Another point is if you run several websites on a single box, WebDNA 6.2 = will handle all of them and if one website is buggy or takes all the = resources, then WebDNA 6.2 might slow down, hang or even crash. If it = crashes, it crashes apache too. If you run one WebDNA 7.0 copy per website, a buggy or hungry website = will just slow or crash its WebDNA copy. It will not crash apache, it = will not crash the other WebDNA copies. You would be able to fix the = problem by just working on the faulty website, without holding the = service for your other customers. Also, by monitoring the CPU load (using the "top" command), you would = immediately be able to "see" what website is taking more resources than = the others, and what is the real RAM usage per website. Finally, there is no need to restart WebDNA if it crashes: apache (or = any other webserver software) takes care of it. - chris =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D WebDNA Software Corporation 16192 Coastal Highway Lewes, DE 19958 On Jan 4, 2012, at 19:34, William DeVaul wrote: > What is the capacity for WebDNA 6 versus 7 in terms of load? I have = wondered if my server was too busy for WebDNA 6 to handle.=20 >=20 > Bill >=20 > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thierry Almy wrote: > We're using version 7 since a few weeks and I really like the product. >=20 > I also like the many times discussed fcgi solution. > We had performance problems in the past, heavy load on a few vhosts = brought us waiting times up to 5 seconds per page, for all vhosts, not = just the ones with heavy load, because with v6 a single webdna process = is responsible for all vhosts. >=20 > Having the ability to split the load on many separate webdna processes = will solve this problem. >=20 >=20 > I moved our CMS to v7, took me two days of programming, but only = because we used global databases to store informations about which CMS = modules to serve for each client, versions installed and a copy = protection system of all our CMS clients. We solved this problem with a = databases on an own vhost, all our CMS systems are exchanging = informations with this global database using CURL commands. > So there's no more need for global databases in our case. >=20 > All the other functions worked just perfect as they did before. My = concerns about incompatibility were absolutely unnecessary. > (excluding the [thisurl]-tag discussed in another thread in this list) >=20 > And it's even possible to serve v6 and v7 sites on the same server, = just make sure you use different suffixes for v6 and v7. > Because we wanted to have .tpl for v6 and .dna for v7 and I had to = make some changes to the v6 administration. >=20 >=20 > During the next weeks we'll move a few more sites with heavy load to = v7. >=20 >=20 >=20 > At this point I'd like to put a big THANK YOU into this list, thank = you Chris, thank you community! > This product and its further development saves our a... and it's worth = a lot more than it costs ;-) >=20 >=20 > Thierry--------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- This message = is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To = unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: = http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: = support@webdna.us christophe.billiottet@webdna.us

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Bug Report, maybe (1997) How do I write this search? (2006) Searchable WebCat (etc.) Docs ? (1997) http upload (2001) Auto Wrap Text in

(2004) My Eyes doth deceive me (2002) Professional WebDNA Hosting Solutions (2005) WebCatalog 4.0.1 has been released! OSXS (2000) tcpconnect (1999) [OT] Kerio Mailserver (2003) UPDATE PROBLEM (1997) Hideif / Showif (1998) 2.0 Info (1997) Non-Cart Files in Shopping Cart Folder (1997) RE: Loss in form (1998) Hiding HTML and page breaks (1997) WebCat/CyberStudio Compatibility (1998) Multiple catalog databases and showcart (1997) problem with text A (2000) Time Remaining? (1998)