Hi,
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> You still haven't answered any of the questions that I asked in a
> private email ... Is this a time of day issue (from your two samples, it
> looks like it is)? If you set it up to run hourly, what do the #s look
> like for each run throughout the day? What does the loadavg look like
> on the server when you are running the script? Or is the database being
> slow?
I tried running mirror later today:
Nov 02 12:42:47 mirror [info] Mirroring finished. 423 page(s) saved, 2354
second(s) spent
I also am running it now, getting the same ~5 sec per page response time and
uptime command states:
7:49PM up 10 days, 4:36, 4 users, load averages: 4.00, 3.22, 3.04
The database itself does not look slow, nothing like these 5 seconds to connect
/ send the standard query.
> Considering that Dave states above that the current script takes minutes
> to generate >7000 pages, what are you doing differently that makes it so
> much slower? And, why exactly are we changing from the current method
> if the new method is going to require a dedicated server to run it?
Yes, that's one way to ask these questions. The other way is: why are we having
response times of ~5 seconds for not-too-complex pages?
The only thing I'm doing differently from the current one is that I'm sending
HTTP requests to get the pages. I already outlined benefits of this approach
either here or in a private mail.
