No such thing as a small change | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
It's funny how everything goes around in circular fashion. When I started doing web development, servers didn't have much in the way of capacity, and CGIs were extremely expensive, so everything was static. Dynamic content was something reserved for a small section of the site, and generally served off a different machine (as I remember, we had some big 8-processor Sun boxes for this - heck, it was 1996). As time went on, the software improved, more features were desired, and dynamic content started to creep into more areas of out sites. Our front-line webservers started serving quasi-dynamic content, and those 8-processor boxes went by the wayside. Nowadays, we're almost back where we started. We have front-line webservers that do nothing except serve static HTML, though we do use mod_include SSI directives as well (something that could be done in perl). We generally don't do much in dynamic content, except for full-blown applications. And we serve a *lot* of content every day. With all that - nothing beats static HTML in terms of performance or server response time. And the more systems/applications you add to a page, the fewer pages you're able to serve, the more your response time goes up, and the more hardware you'll need to support your site. Things to think about:
I don't want to discourage you from going into dynamic website construction - it's where things get interesting. But if you're not careful, you can find yourself with a server melting down under the load, and few quick remedies. Try a few things, see what it gets you, but keep the above in mind if people start to really like what you're doing. Good luck! :) In reply to Re: Re: pulling content from db - is it a good idea?
by swngnmonk
|
|