Hosts views on parsed pages.
I've always avoided using site-wide page parsing like SSI, ASP and PHP. However, I'm currently reworking some aspects of my site and would like to include one chunk of content via SSI. That chunk is included on every page and will be updating semi-regularly, so it would be far easier to do it that way rather than batch editing and re-uploading the files. It would mean that the server would need to parse every page on the site (maybe 1000) rather than the dozen or so that currently use SSI
I've heard a lot of people discuss how parsing pages effects server performance, but how do the hosts feel about it? Will a site that generates about 15,000 page views a day at maybe 18K average page weight hamper server performance by requiring all those pages to be parsed? Just wondering.
Anonymous posted this at 03:32 — 17th December 1999.
They have: 5,633 posts
Joined: Jan 1970
Maverick,
It isn't so much the quantity of the SSI pages but rather how they are setup. SSI aren't hard on a server, even on such a large site. The problem comes when they are used improperly though. Pages that are parsed should be named accordingly. Pages with SSI should be named with the .shtml extension. I know it is a BIG convenience for users to be able to make .html pages parseable, but that is when the problems come in. If you are going to use SSI, you should use it properly by naming the file with the .shtml extension.
One of the biggest problems is search engines. Search engines go full force on .html pages because they think they are supposed to be plain text files. However, when you start parsing .html files, the search engine is still going full force on that file and thus it can cause a big problem for the server, even bringing it down in some instances. Instead, by naming the files with the .shtml extension, the search engines will slow down for them knowing there will be special coding on them and thus, much better for the server.
I hope all this made sense and enlightened your perspective of things on the host's side of this debate a little more.
------------------
Dynamic Internet Solutions : http://www.dids.com
Windows NT and UNIX Hosting
Maverick posted this at 03:57 — 17th December 1999.
They have: 334 posts
Joined: Dec 1999
I never even considered the search engine aspect of things. I was only concerned about bogging down the server by forcing it to parse those pages rather than just loading them blindly. And yes, I was planning to make .htm extensions as SSI parsed. Editing the pages themselves to adapt the .shtml in place of .htm is simple enough, but now I've got to change all the file names by hand I think. Thanks for the advice.
BTW, anyone know of a program that will do batch file renaming. Something that will take all the files in a folder and given a wildcard like *.htm would be able to rename all of those file to filename.shtml?
Oops, never mind. Found a batch file renaming utility quite easily. Ahhh, I love when that happens. Thanks for the advice.
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 16 December 1999).]
Anonymous posted this at 15:22 — 17th December 1999.
They have: 5,633 posts
Joined: Jan 1970
may i ask what batch renaming program you are using and where i can find it??!!
------------------
This Site is For Webmasters Only!!
[email protected]
Maverick posted this at 18:37 — 17th December 1999.
They have: 334 posts
Joined: Dec 1999
I just did a search for "rename" at download.com and the very first return was a little utility called NameWiz. It's available from http://softbytelabs.com and should also be listed on most of the major shareware sites. For batch filename editing like converting .htm to .shtml it works like a charm.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.