On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Shinya Koizumi wrote:
>>>development mode vs. no debug mode
> Is this just matter of "debug" => 0,1,2, right?
Yes. With debug > 0 caching is disabled.
--
Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials
http://tv.cakephp.org
Check out the new CakePHP
>>development mode vs. no debug mode
Is this just matter of "debug" => 0,1,2, right?
--
Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials
http://tv.cakephp.org
Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others
with their CakePHP related questions.
To un
Sorry, but if you are on shared hosting you don't care about
performance. Also CakePHP is much much slower in development mode vs.
no debug mode, as the filesystem is scrapped on every request, which
is a slow process.
-Mark
On Mar 23, 6:30 pm, Ziki wrote:
> Currently it is on shared hosting wi
Currently it is on shared hosting with eAccelerator, HTML caching can
be provided for few pages, but with other it is not possible because
content is full dynamically and it will be changed all the time. This
web application is complex, because its complexity I choose Cake.
On 23 ožu, 19:49, "Ma'
1) Have you tried using a bytecode cacher? i think that you should consider
using APC or Xcache if you are not using one of them already!
2) Have you considered using HTML Caching for your site, this will
"seriously" help reducing server processing!
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Ziki wrote:
>
My site is not so slow, but if I will have a lot of users this will be
a problem. Here is image http://dl.dropbox.com/u/905349/loadtimer.png
of timer for loading the site. Only problem is cake core, and because
of this I am asking is 2.0 version faster.
On 23 ožu, 14:42, MaxDao wrote:
> I have sa
I have same question about performance, and can't wait till we have
more stable version to test it. I have cakephp 1.1 project willing to
upgrade, however 1.3 is slower than 1.1
On 22 Бер, 15:19, Ziki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am developing complex website (business and social network) with
> 1.3.6 vers
on windows there are some terrible "performance losses" with the
Folder class
other than that its probably app related - would be my guess
On 22 Mrz., 21:15, mark_story wrote:
> I don't think many people have done extensive benchmarking of 2.0
> against 1.3. I've done a bit myself, and there we
I don't think many people have done extensive benchmarking of 2.0
against 1.3. I've done a bit myself, and there were some speed gains,
but at the same time trying to build an application against an
unstable code base is usually a bad idea.
Have you done any profiling to find out what specificall
We are now still in developing phase, we do not have users. Maybe for
2 months it will be in beta version. Do you have any experience in 2.0
performance?
On 22 ožu, 14:40, Stephen wrote:
> Not quite about speed, but I wouldn't really switch to 2.0 until it's stable
> and officially released - esp
Not quite about speed, but I wouldn't really switch to 2.0 until it's stable
and officially released - especially if your website contains a large amount
of users
On 22 March 2011 13:19, Ziki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am developing complex website (business and social network) with
> 1.3.6 version and
Hi,
I am developing complex website (business and social network) with
1.3.6 version and it is pretty slow, maybe it is because my server and
I did all tips and tricks (lazy loader, APC caching, caching queries,
views) but generally it is slow and use more memory especially on the
loading cake fil
12 matches
Mail list logo
