Re: Separate server for jpg/gif files
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 1998
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 19167
interpreted = N
texte = At 11:42 Uhr 27.07.1998, Sandra L. Pitner wrote:>>we had a diagram some time ago, published by Starnine. It showed a >>significant lower performance if the image-server is on the same network(!) >>and slower than the main server. At least with WebStar. > >I'd be interested in that diagram if you know where to find it. Given >that a lowly 6100 can flood a T1 line, it doesn't make sense unless >there's a slow DNS lookup issue. We actually use an IP # instead of >domain name in our graphics address. Performance to us is much improved >because the server is busy with the cgi processing and the graphics are >served independently.I cannot find the diagram I mentioned. I am pretty sure it was from Starnine and showed the performance of WebStar. Adding a second WebStar on a slower machine brought the speed significantly down but adding more bandwith for the single version gave more speed. The diagram simply said: More bandwidth is better than more servers. The information is older than one year and they talked about a medium speedy machine on a medium line.I think you are right with your comments about domain lookup. At our test about 18 months ago (on a 265k line) we had one Webstar, added RushHour on a slower machine but called the images via domainname, not IP. And the DNS was on a third machine which also was slow. Page delivery was not faster than with the one WebStar. >From what I remember, the client requests the .tpl page, receives it back >and then client's computer requests all the subsequent graphics hits...This is true. And like you say, performance depends on the relative locations of the two servers from the view of the client. For a couple of months we ran an image server in the states and in combination with the webserver here in Austria we reduced the load on our server and did not loose overall performance - your lines over there are better than ours. But we found the management of distributed html/image servers rather laborious for our staff and our small websites. Now we take a different approach: main webserver is WebTen on a G3 and runs all sites which require WebCat and some 4D-databases. The other sites we will move to an Apache server on a 400 Mhz Linux box. Perl can be used on both.So - according to Starnines suggestions and your and our experiences I think about three groups:#1 Line performance and budget are rather low: An outside image server or more bandwith.#2 Line is good and more machines are available: One server for dynamic stuff and one for static pages.#3 You have some big sites and want to distribute the load: Like #2 but with an outside image server.Of course, this is our sight only and depends on the characteristics of the sites you serve. Most of our sites are managed by our clients, therefore it is a lot easier for us to distribute complete sites over two servers than dividing into html and images. Peter__________________________________________ Peter Ostry - po@ostry.com - www.ostry.com Ostry & Partner - Ostry Internet Solutions Auhofstrasse 29 A-1130 Vienna Austria fon ++43-1-8777454 fax ++43-1-8777454-21
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
At 11:42 Uhr 27.07.1998, Sandra L. Pitner wrote:>>we had a diagram some time ago, published by Starnine. It showed a >>significant lower performance if the image-server is on the same network(!) >>and slower than the main server. At least with WebStar. > >I'd be interested in that diagram if you know where to find it. Given >that a lowly 6100 can flood a T1 line, it doesn't make sense unless >there's a slow DNS lookup issue. We actually use an IP # instead of >domain name in our graphics address. Performance to us is much improved >because the server is busy with the cgi processing and the graphics are >served independently.I cannot find the diagram I mentioned. I am pretty sure it was from Starnine and showed the performance of WebStar. Adding a second WebStar on a slower machine brought the speed significantly down but adding more bandwith for the single version gave more speed. The diagram simply said: More bandwidth is better than more servers. The information is older than one year and they talked about a medium speedy machine on a medium line.I think you are right with your comments about domain lookup. At our test about 18 months ago (on a 265k line) we had one Webstar, added RushHour on a slower machine but called the images via domainname, not IP. And the DNS was on a third machine which also was slow. Page delivery was not faster than with the one WebStar. >From what I remember, the client requests the .tpl page, receives it back >and then client's computer requests all the subsequent graphics hits...This is true. And like you say, performance depends on the relative locations of the two servers from the view of the client. For a couple of months we ran an image server in the states and in combination with the webserver here in Austria we reduced the load on our server and did not loose overall performance - your lines over there are better than ours. But we found the management of distributed html/image servers rather laborious for our staff and our small websites. Now we take a different approach: main webserver is WebTen on a G3 and runs all sites which require WebCat and some 4D-databases. The other sites we will move to an Apache server on a 400 Mhz Linux box. Perl can be used on both.So - according to Starnines suggestions and your and our experiences I think about three groups:#1 Line performance and budget are rather low: An outside image server or more bandwith.#2 Line is good and more machines are available: One server for dynamic stuff and one for static pages.#3 You have some big sites and want to distribute the load: Like #2 but with an outside image server.Of course, this is our sight only and depends on the characteristics of the sites you serve. Most of our sites are managed by our clients, therefore it is a lot easier for us to distribute complete sites over two servers than dividing into html and images. Peter__________________________________________ Peter Ostry - po@ostry.com - www.ostry.com Ostry & Partner - Ostry Internet Solutions Auhofstrasse 29 A-1130 Vienna Austria fon ++43-1-8777454 fax ++43-1-8777454-21
Peter Ostry
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:
[/application] error? (1997)
Re:WebCat hosting sites? (1998)
Grepping to remove text & code (2004)
docs for WebCatalog2 (1997)
Unable to open the demo file (1998)
WebDNA Partner edition .. (2002)
WC1.6 to WC2 date formatting -FIXED! (1997)
version 2 for NT (1997)
3 fields must match (2004)
[WebDNA] [sendmail] attachment on unix (2014)
Is this possible, WebCat2.0 and checkboxes (1997)
Bad suffix error (1997)
default value from Lookup (was Grant, please help me) (1997)
Problems with ^ could be solved with [REPLACE CHARACTERS] (1997)
Shipping.db (1998)
Limit to Field Length in DB (1998)
PIXO support (1997)
WebCAT has the devil in it! (2003)
off topic fetch vs PCS photomaster (1997)
using showpage and showcart commands (1996)