Re^5: Read Only Perlmonks

You have to compare like with like: as the read-only site would not have the comment options, you can only compare the speed of the pages where there is no writing to be done. I still think that deleting the comment options would not make the site any faster, for the non-writeable parts that is.

As the data for the whole site is kept in a database anyhow, synchronisation, one way or both ways, will be handled on the database-level. It should be transparent on the web-server level. And of course for the non-writeable pages, it is one-way by definition.

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

Comment on Re^5: Read Only Perlmonks

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Read Only Perlmonks (theory) by tye (Sage) on Jan 07, 2010 at 17:08 UTC
Nice hand waving. There have been at least 3 read-only mirrors of PerlMonks. They were each significantly faster than PerlMonks and likely hosted on significantly less hardware. I don't believe any of them are still being maintained. Now, surely a large part of the speed / resource difference is related to none of the mirrors ever having taken a significant fraction of the traffic of PerlMonks. However, the mirrors were substantially simpler. I would expect their page generation to be at least an order of magnitude more efficient. A read-only mirror has little reason to allow you to log in and thus doesn't have to deal with authenticating each request, loading user settings, rendering nodelets, updating user stats, storing nodes in the form that users edit them while displaying them in a different form, etc. A read-only mirror really acts like a cache, just storing the nodes as they are to be displayed and just serving up nearly static content. Yes, that will always be tons more efficient. I suspect it is typically closer to two or three orders of magnitude more efficient. - tye	[reply]
Re^7: Read Only Perlmonks (theory) by ambrus (Abbot) on Jan 08, 2010 at 08:18 UTC
Could I hereby ask how much data perlmonks contains, that is, what order of magnitude of data would such an external mirror have to store?	[reply]
Re^8: Read Only Perlmonks (theory) by Corion (Patriarch) on Jan 08, 2010 at 08:26 UTC
The SQL dump of PM has a size of about 2GB, but it also contains lots of administrative stuff that is not necessary for display, like information about votes etc..	[reply]
Re^6: Read Only Perlmonks by jffry (Hermit) on Jan 08, 2010 at 19:52 UTC
CountZero wrote: > As the data for the whole site is kept in a database anyhow, synchronisation, one way or both ways, will be handled on the database-level. Since this is Perlmonks, shouldn't we have a bevy of monks cutting and pasting the site by hand?	[reply]