On that note, don't forget to turn on Application and Include file caching in the witango server. Years ago, with simple .taf based development, we got along for a while without that turned on. Our CMS has grown so much that I don't know how we ever operated without it.
On the subject of Standard vs. Professional. I would most definitly say that Pro is worth it. In fact, there is no such thing as a non-pro server anymore anyway. The new pricing lowered the price of the pro server to about what a standard was, if i remember right. Anyway, I like pro, because I can have 4 app servers running on physical hardware, and if one crashes, everything just keeps moving along. But I also run multiple servers in a cluster so I have hardware redundancy as well. If Standard is truly using only "some" of the CPUs then pro should get you some more simultaneous users out of that server... good luck. /John On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Robert Garcia <wita...@bighead.net> wrote: > My personal opinion, with the cost of licenses and the way witango performs > is to us multiple single processor servers in a load group. > > Also, witango suffers very heavily due to its lack of page caching, or output > data caching. Every modern app server should have this. We no longer use > witango in any large enterprise type installation, but when we did we wrote > our own output data caching mechanism in witango, and it allowed us to get > the 3-4x the level of performance out of the systems, since we could cache > output from certain pages for certain periods of time. For instance, lets say > you have a page that displays product data that has a lot of expensive > processes within that looks up data and parses into special displays and > such. So one taf, but many products, and the page is expensive, however it > may only get updated 3-4x per day. So we used our cache system to cache the > output based on the ?sku= argument and the time to live for hte cache was 2 > hours. So the cache was only built for each page on the first hit, and stored > for 2 hours. So for 2 hours this page was not read from the DB and witango > processes, but read from a cached output from disk. It worked extremely well > and works like similar mechanisms used in PHP (ZF) and other languages. You > can keep spending money on licenses but this type of caching mechanism can > increase performance exponentially if deployed correctly. > > Who knows, maybe something like that will come in witango 7, in 2013 or so. > Either way, it is possible to write your own in witango, and it does work. > > -- > > Robert Garcia > President - BigHead Technology > VP Application Development - eventpix.com > 13653 West Park Dr > Magalia, Ca 95954 > ph: 530.645.4040 x222 fax: 530.645.4040 > rgar...@bighead.net - rgar...@eventpix.com > http://bighead.net/ - http://eventpix.com/ > > On Feb 23, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Bill Downall wrote: > >> Can anyone share experiences with moving from Standard to Professional, to >> take advantage of processors two, three and four? I have two servers that >> are getting more traffic that ever before, and slower responses. One is >> losing it's database connection every time there are are large number of >> users connected. There will still be only one data source that will have to >> be shared by multiple instances of Witango (5.5). >> >> Is it worth the upgrade price to try to goose performance and stability? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Bill >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf > ________________________________________________________________________ > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf > > -- /John ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf
