ani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Berkenbosch wrote:
> > It took some time, but I wrote a (small) blog post this evening about
> the
> > performance 'issues' that I had and how I solved them,
> >
> > You can find it here :
> >
> http://peterberk
Peter Berkenbosch wrote:
> It took some time, but I wrote a (small) blog post this evening about the
> performance 'issues' that I had and how I solved them,
>
> You can find it here :
> http://peterberkenbosch.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/radiant-performance-issue-and-
It took some time, but I wrote a (small) blog post this evening about the
performance 'issues' that I had and how I solved them,
You can find it here :
http://peterberkenbosch.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/radiant-performance-issue-and-how-i-fixed-it/
Peter.
On Jan 11, 2008 4:49
I'm using the aggregate extension now and it is fast! So no problems there.
Peter.
On Jan 11, 2008 4:45 PM, Ryan Heneise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you find that the aggregate extension sped things up?
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2008, at 2:38 AM, Peter Berkenbosch wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Yes,
Did you find that the aggregate extension sped things up?
On Jan 11, 2008, at 2:38 AM, Peter Berkenbosch wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Yes, I understand. It was on my mind all the time, but I never
> thought about
> the menu. I also use the aggregate extension with alot of nesting so I
> started to lo
Hi John,
Yes, I understand. It was on my mind all the time, but I never thought about
the menu. I also use the aggregate extension with alot of nesting so I
started to look there first.
I will try to make a blog post about this experience this weekend.
Peter.
On Jan 11, 2008 12:16 AM, John Long
On 1/10/08, Peter Berkenbosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do have a lot of nested pages with a recursive menu snippet.
> So I removed the recursion and added the list of sub-pages in het content of
> the parent page. It's blazing :D fast again.
On performance the thing to keep in mind is that t
Hi Ryan,
I don't use that extension, but I do have a lot of nested pages with a
recursive menu snippet.
So I removed the recursion and added the list of sub-pages in het content of
the parent page.
It's blazing :D fast again.
Peter.
On Jan 10, 2008 10:42 PM, Ryan Heneise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
Are you by any chance running the navigation plugin
(http://svn.artofmission.com/svn/plugins/radiant/extensions/navigation_tags/
) AND using the tag AND have lots of nested pages? If so,
try removing that tag and compare performance. That tag has a bug that
can cause slowdowns like the ones
Sorry for this spam-like mailing...
simple layout (just )
Processing SiteController#show_page (for 217.120.155.28 at 2008-01-10
21:34:33) [GET]
Parameters: {"url"=>["nl", "test"], "action"=>"show_page",
"controller"=>"site"}
Completed in 0.05132 (19 reqs/sec) | DB: 0.00329 (6%) | 200 OK [
http:
And a simple hello world / test page with a normal used layout
Processing SiteController#show_page (for 217.120.155.28 at 2008-01-10
21:30:57) [GET]
Parameters: {"url"=>["nl", "test"], "action"=>"show_page",
"controller"=>"site"}
Completed in 4.86826 (0 reqs/sec) | DB: 0.87199 (17%) | 200 OK [
h
Hello,
I;ve just logged in to the admin and this is in de log:
Processing WelcomeController#index (for 217.120.155.28 at 2008-01-10
21:25:44) [GET]
Session ID: fc1b241ee9c237aa602c4ec81911811a
Parameters: {"action"=>"index", "controller"=>"admin/welcome"}
Redirected to http://www.ffinfo.nl/a
It's production mode and I think it's quite complex. I will try a simple
hello world page.
Thanks
Peter
On Jan 10, 2008 8:55 PM, John Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/08, Peter Berkenbosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm having some issues with a radiant install that I can;t really
On 1/10/08, Peter Berkenbosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm having some issues with a radiant install that I can;t really
> understand.
>
> ...
>
> I really don't like the numbers here.
Is the app running in production mode? If not, the pages are not being
cached so it probably will be slow.
W
Hello List,
I'm having some issues with a radiant install that I can;t really
understand. the site (www.ffinfo.nl) is hosted on a slicehost 512 slice.
There are 6 mongrel instances running. http server is nginx.
Small part of the log file:
Processing SiteController#show_page (for 212.178.112.58 a
If you guys are concerned about performance, please search the mailing
list for Daniel's most recent benchmarks. He's done a great job making
sure Radiant's cache performance is stellar.
Sean
Peter Berkenbosch wrote:
> I think I run 4 mongrels, so that should be brought back to two. I also use
I think I run 4 mongrels, so that should be brought back to two. I also use
Apache which has to be replaced with nginx or something else.
Thanks for the headsup!
Peter
On Nov 14, 2007 5:22 PM, David Piehler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sean Cribbs wrote:
> > Are you using mongrel_cluster? If s
Sean Cribbs wrote:
> Are you using mongrel_cluster? If so, I would make sure you don't run
> more than 2 mongrel processes. On an app I worked on this summer that
> was hosted on a 256 slice, we would have major problems if we ran more
> than two, our app would screech to a halt after about an ho
+-le 14.11.2007 08:28:59 -0600, Sean Cribbs a dit :
| Peter,
|
| Are you using mongrel_cluster? If so, I would make sure you don't run
| more than 2 mongrel processes. On an app I worked on this summer that
| was hosted on a 256 slice, we would have major problems if we ran more
| than two, o
Peter,
Are you using mongrel_cluster? If so, I would make sure you don't run
more than 2 mongrel processes. On an app I worked on this summer that
was hosted on a 256 slice, we would have major problems if we ran more
than two, our app would screech to a halt after about an hour of hitting
v
Thanks,
I will check that out, looks really promising.
Peter.
On Nov 14, 2007 1:16 PM, Aitor Garay-Romero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your site (nice work!) looks mostly static, you can try the snapshot
> extension:
>
> http://lists.radiantcms.org/pipermail/radiant/2007-October/006823.html
Your site (nice work!) looks mostly static, you can try the snapshot
extension:
http://lists.radiantcms.org/pipermail/radiant/2007-October/006823.html
Still is a preview, but it should be usable. Hope to find a moment to
release it soon...
/AITOR
On Nov 14, 2007 1:02 PM, Peter Ber
Hello List,
I'm having some performance issues on a site based on Radiant.
http://www.ffinfo.nl
It's running on Radiant 0.6.2
Sample in the log:
Processing SiteController#show_page (for 66.249.65.136 at 2007-11-14
11:52:20) [GET]
Parameters: {"url"=>["nl", "vliegbinden", "gastbinders", "arno
Francesco Lunelli wrote:
> rocessing SiteController#show_page (for 194.242.213.100 at 2007-04-16
> 13:20:49) [GET]
> Parameters: {"url"=>"/", "action"=>"show_page", "controller"=>"site"}
> Completed in 142.14869 (0 reqs/sec) | DB: 5.45009 (3%) | 200 OK
> [http://ml2007.ifl.it/]
>
>
> Processing
It's not unusual for Ruby to be slow in some instances. Are you running
in development mode? The timing of the slow load would have to do with
the 5-minute page cache, but it would be extra slow if you are running
in development mode.
Sean
Francesco Lunelli wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Francesco Lunelli wrote:
>
>
>> Hello to everybody,
>> I am developing some new site with radiant,
>> but partciularly with one oh these I have strange performance problems.
>> Sometimes a page takes very long time to show, more than 50 second
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Francesco Lunelli wrote:
> Hello to everybody,
> I am developing some new site with radiant,
> but partciularly with one oh these I have strange performance problems.
> Sometimes a page takes very long time to show, more than 50 seconds,
> sometimes the same page came up in le
Hello to everybody,
I am developing some new site with radiant,
but partciularly with one oh these I have strange performance problems.
Sometimes a page takes very long time to show, more than 50 seconds,
sometimes the same page came up in less then one second.
It is not a cache problem, because so
Hi Kevin,
Thank you. My assumption was wrong - on further review, I do see the xml files
in the cache directory.
Well, I guess that one is crossed off the list then.
Todd
Quoting Kevin Ansfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Todd,
>
> That page should still get cached if you are using the stand
Hi Todd,
That page should still get cached if you are using the standard radiant
system, are you finding that this isn't the case?
Best Regards,
Kevin
On 3/19/07, Todd McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I have some pages that generate XML and I'm looking to improve
performance.
(Actuall
Hi,
I have some pages that generate XML and I'm looking to improve performance.
(Actually, I'm looking for any tips that will improve performance)
Here's one that is concerning-
http://pastie.caboo.se/47962
I don't think a page like this will be cached because of the
tags? right?
I'm using
Daniel Sheppard wrote:
> The performance of find_by_url degrades because children don't
> automatically get a reference to their parent, but they need to get that
> parent reference to compute their url. With a structure of:
>
> - home
> - articles
> - (600 articles here)
>
>
tcms.org
> Subject: [Radiant] Performance of find_page_by_url
___
Radiant mailing list
Post: Radiant@lists.radiantcms.org
Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/
Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
The performance of find_by_url degrades because children don't
automatically get a reference to their parent, but they need to get that
parent reference to compute their url. With a structure of:
- home
- articles
- (600 articles here)
To find the nth article will take 2xn
34 matches
Mail list logo
