Hi! I talked with Ber about path mappings and here are my ideas: *) We remove arg() calls from most of core and use parameters to callbacks. *) Instead of linking to node/$nid , we have a give_me_a_path('node', $nid) function. On admin UI you can choose which handler deals with 'node' type paths. This handler gets $type ('node', 'comment' whatever) and $id as a parameter and creates a path. This is the crux of the matter: instead of dumb string aliasing what path module does currently we create an 'intelligent' subsystem. *) I first thought that we need to add regular expressions to menu to match incoming paths against but I am not sure. The current system, I think is able. See below for an example. For example, a mapping for the type 'user' could describe itself as 'puts usernames into the path'. After choosing this handler when url gets ('user', $uid) , it would hand over these as parameters to the username_path function which would grab name field from user table and return with the path "username/$name". This is one SQL query against user table which is approximately the same amount of work that path does currently -- but it queries an indexed table with a numeric index. The function url() would call only one mapping function per invocation as it is now, with the only change that this function comes from a variable. A menu callback would handle the path 'username', with an argument of $name. This callback is as simple as loading $uid and calling user_page with it. So I think this subsystem could scale nicely. Of course, this is a LOT and LOT of work because we need to change EVERY l/url in core to be an 'intelligent' call. But the results! Regards Karoly Negyesi
At present, I am able to alias any URL For example, if a module has a page called sitemenu, I can called it sitemap. If a module has a page called feedback, I can call it contact_us While your scheme has obvious merits, I see it only doing this for nodes, comments, and users. Taxonomy is not mentioned, but is doable. The drawback is that we lose the ability to alias anything.
Ber, yes it does not scale. Chx But for most site (the very high traffic ones being the exception), what I miss is renaming any path that Drupal generates, I gave examples above (sitemenu => sitemap, feedback => contact, ....etc.) Right now, I have some aliases that are not node or user, and if a future version does drop this, there will be a lot of 404s even internally. A fall back to a string based aliasing mechanism (in other words the present scheme) can be a good option. On 12/28/05, Karoly Negyesi <karoly@negyesi.net> wrote:
The drawback is that we lose the ability to alias anything.
What's the 'anything' you can't do?
Also, I can imagine falling back to a string replacing alias system...
Op woensdag 28 december 2005 07:18, schreef Khalid B:
At present, I am able to alias any URL
Sure. But does it scale? Can you do: tags/drupal+cms+4_6 ... and so on for all the tags and it its combinations and all its orders user/Khalid ... and so on for all the users profiel/land/België (now profile/country/Belgium) and so on? Probably not. not in a way that it requires no hacking and not home-brewn-php. in other words: not out of the box. Not even in a clean developed module. -- [ Bèr Kessels | Drupal services www.webschuur.com ]
Bèr Kessels wrote:
Op woensdag 28 december 2005 07:18, schreef Khalid B:
At present, I am able to alias any URL
Sure. But does it scale?
Can you do: tags/drupal+cms+4_6 ... and so on for all the tags and it its combinations and all its orders user/Khalid ... and so on for all the users profiel/land/België (now profile/country/Belgium) and so on?
Probably not. not in a way that it requires no hacking and not home-brewn-php. in other words: not out of the box. Not even in a clean developed module.
You can implement all these aliases in a module, which defines custom_url_rewrite(), and provides a nifty UI on top of its functionality. Unless you are not using any other custom_url_rewrite() function, everything is fine. No home-brewn-php needed. Goba
On Dec 28, 2005, at 2:18 AM, Bèr Kessels wrote:
Op woensdag 28 december 2005 07:18, schreef Khalid B:
At present, I am able to alias any URL
Sure. But does it scale?
If you were talking about 4.6 I'd say no since ALL aliases were loaded per request. However for 4.7 aliases are only loaded when they're needed, and then they're cached for the rest of the request. Matt
Matt Westgate wrote:
On Dec 28, 2005, at 2:18 AM, Bèr Kessels wrote:
Op woensdag 28 december 2005 07:18, schreef Khalid B:
At present, I am able to alias any URL
Sure. But does it scale?
If you were talking about 4.6 I'd say no since ALL aliases were loaded per request. However for 4.7 aliases are only loaded when they're needed, and then they're cached for the rest of the request.
I'd put it this way: For each use of l() a db query is made to test whether this url has an alias defined (assuming you have at least one alias). People with hosters that only allow them a limited number of queries per hour will have fun with this. Cheers, Gerhard
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:20:45AM +0100, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
People with hosters that only allow them a limited number of queries per hour will have fun with this.
There are such hosts? OMG... -- Piotrek irc: #debian.pl Mors Drosophilis melanogastribus!
On 12/29/05, Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr@mallorn.ii.uj.edu.pl> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:20:45AM +0100, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
People with hosters that only allow them a limited number of queries per hour will have fun with this.
There are such hosts? OMG...
It's a tough debate - I use dreamhost which follows a limiting policy: https://panel.dreamhost.com/kbase/?area=2583 "We still track them[number of queries and connections], but unless you're in the top .01% of our database users, you'll never need to worry about conuery usage again!" The good side is that it keeps the server under a reasonable load and my server doesn't get bogged down by some custom application that has horrible performance. The downside is that long before you fill up the transfer/month or disk space or...you will use up your 30-40 minutes of CPU time/day. Greg
I know Károly has a session at Vancouver to discuss the path mapping system, but I'd just like to add that I think this forum topic should be addressed during this session as well: http://drupal.org/node/45240 With so many duplicate URLs in a possible Drupal install, search engines could certainly mark content as "negative" because it is duplicated under different paths. With a new URL system, we should make sure we address this issue, in one form or another, whether it be adding ' rel="no-follow" ' to duplicate links or having a more intelligent system that makes sure a site uses 1 consistent link/alias instead of having them mixed about. Food for though for DrupalCon. ted
Hi, I'm also a dreamhoster who is just getting into Drupal. I'm in the process of developing a drupal website (http://test.cubiclearmy.com) and am wondering if you know the load a Dreamhost Drupal website can take before it hits the 30-40 cpu minutes. It is a little hard for me to guess since the site isn't live, but it has the potential to have hundreds of visitors a day. I can't afford dedicated hosting unless those hundreds of visitors a day will make enought AdSense traffic to justify the dedicated box (which I doubt). Thanks for any insights. On 12/29/05, Greg Knaddison <greg.knaddison@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/29/05, Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr@mallorn.ii.uj.edu.pl> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:20:45AM +0100, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
People with hosters that only allow them a limited number of queries
per
hour will have fun with this.
There are such hosts? OMG...
It's a tough debate - I use dreamhost which follows a limiting policy:
https://panel.dreamhost.com/kbase/?area=2583
"We still track them[number of queries and connections], but unless you're in the top .01% of our database users, you'll never need to worry about conuery usage again!"
The good side is that it keeps the server under a reasonable load and my server doesn't get bogged down by some custom application that has horrible performance. The downside is that long before you fill up the transfer/month or disk space or...you will use up your 30-40 minutes of CPU time/day.
Greg
-- Proud member of the KEXP cubicle army. http://www.cubiclearmy.com
I can't give you any specifics, but I believe that the load on both CPU, RAM, and Bandwidth depends a lot on what modules are enabled, how much content you have, and how you treat search engine crawlers. Crawlers can generate a lot of traffic. Some modules take more ram than others. And cron jobs are a burden if you have a lot of aggregation - so adding 200 sites to an aggregator and setting them to update once an hour is not the way to avoid CPU usage. Especially not if they are set to do it at the same specific time. There's the throttle module which will be able to "cut off" traffic if it becomes too heavy. I sometimes have close to 200 concurrent users (no not every day.. and it is including the aggregator) - and I let the throttle kick in at 120 (I think). That makes my site a little faster, and I guess it is also nice to the CPU usage. So I guess the answer will be: That depends. However, you've got to take my answer with a grain of salt, as I'm really no expert on these matters. How do you get a better answer? Try to be more specific. What modules, what content, how do you treat crawlers (robots.txt) etc. Best Gunnar
Hi, I'm also a dreamhoster who is just getting into Drupal. I'm in the process of developing a drupal website (http://test.cubiclearmy.com) and am wondering if you know the load a Dreamhost Drupal website can take before it hits the 30-40 cpu minutes. It is a little hard for me to guess since the site isn't live, but it has the potential to have hundreds of visitors a day. I can't afford dedicated hosting unless those hundreds of visitors a day will make enought AdSense traffic to justify the dedicated box (which I doubt). Thanks for any insights.
On 12/29/05, Greg Knaddison <greg.knaddison@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/29/05, Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr@mallorn.ii.uj.edu.pl> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:20:45AM +0100, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
People with hosters that only allow them a limited number of queries
per
hour will have fun with this.
There are such hosts? OMG...
It's a tough debate - I use dreamhost which follows a limiting policy:
https://panel.dreamhost.com/kbase/?area=2583
"We still track them[number of queries and connections], but unless you're in the top .01% of our database users, you'll never need to worry about conuery usage again!"
The good side is that it keeps the server under a reasonable load and my server doesn't get bogged down by some custom application that has horrible performance. The downside is that long before you fill up the transfer/month or disk space or...you will use up your 30-40 minutes of CPU time/day.
Greg
-- Proud member of the KEXP cubicle army. http://www.cubiclearmy.com
Gunnar Langemark gunnar@langemark.com
I haven't hit the limit - but I only get a couple hundred page views a day. It would be interesting to hear from someone who was up against the limit 1. does fastcgi help? 2. any modules to enable/disable/tweak? 3. etc. The performance and scalability forum has more good information: htttp://drupal.org/forum/49 There is also a handbook page on this: http://drupal.org/node/2601 It's worth noting that the CPU limit is now 60 minutes a day. If you assume a 4 processor box and that everyone maxes out every day, that limits a shared host to 96 users (if my understanding of that stats involved is correct). 96 users/server seems like a pretty reasonable number. Other hosts I've been on have been in the hundreds. Greg On 1/18/06, Will Wyatt <will@willwyatt.com> wrote:
Hi, I'm also a dreamhoster who is just getting into Drupal. I'm in the process of developing a drupal website (http://test.cubiclearmy.com) and am wondering if you know the load a Dreamhost Drupal website can take before it hits the 30-40 cpu minutes. It is a little hard for me to guess since the site isn't live, but it has the potential to have hundreds of visitors a day. I can't afford dedicated hosting unless those hundreds of visitors a day will make enought AdSense traffic to justify the dedicated box (which I doubt). Thanks for any insights.
On 12/29/05, Greg Knaddison <greg.knaddison@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/29/05, Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr@mallorn.ii.uj.edu.pl> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:20:45AM +0100, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
People with hosters that only allow them a limited number of queries
per
hour will have fun with this.
There are such hosts? OMG...
It's a tough debate - I use dreamhost which follows a limiting policy:
https://panel.dreamhost.com/kbase/?area=2583
"We still track them[number of queries and connections], but unless you're in the top .01% of our database users, you'll never need to worry about conuery usage again!"
The good side is that it keeps the server under a reasonable load and my server doesn't get bogged down by some custom application that has horrible performance. The downside is that long before you fill up the transfer/month or disk space or...you will use up your 30-40 minutes of CPU time/day.
Greg
-- Proud member of the KEXP cubicle army. http://www.cubiclearmy.com
Hi, I am with dreamhost as well. I have read this policy and I also read somewhere else that the limits are so high that you would need to be hitting the database extremely hard before they block your access. But also with the latest increases in resource's to 1TB though put on the basic plan. I think that if you were getting cut off then I think you would need to think seriously about dedicated hosting, and how to fund it. I think that you will be OK. Gordon. On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 16:30 -0600, Will Wyatt wrote:
Hi, I'm also a dreamhoster who is just getting into Drupal. I'm in the process of developing a drupal website (http://test.cubiclearmy.com) and am wondering if you know the load a Dreamhost Drupal website can take before it hits the 30-40 cpu minutes. It is a little hard for me to guess since the site isn't live, but it has the potential to have hundreds of visitors a day. I can't afford dedicated hosting unless those hundreds of visitors a day will make enought AdSense traffic to justify the dedicated box (which I doubt). Thanks for any insights.
On 12/29/05, Greg Knaddison <greg.knaddison@gmail.com> wrote: On 12/29/05, Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr@mallorn.ii.uj.edu.pl> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:20:45AM +0100, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote: > > > > People with hosters that only allow them a limited number of queries per > > hour will have fun with this. > > There are such hosts? OMG... >
It's a tough debate - I use dreamhost which follows a limiting policy:
https://panel.dreamhost.com/kbase/?area=2583
"We still track them[number of queries and connections], but unless you're in the top .01% of our database users, you'll never need to worry about conuery usage again!"
The good side is that it keeps the server under a reasonable load and my server doesn't get bogged down by some custom application that has horrible performance. The downside is that long before you fill up the transfer/month or disk space or...you will use up your 30-40 minutes of CPU time/day.
Greg
-- Proud member of the KEXP cubicle army. http://www.cubiclearmy.com !DSPAM:1000,43cec627165274881810528!
participants (12)
-
Bèr Kessels -
Gabor Hojtsy -
Gerhard Killesreiter -
Gordon Heydon -
Greg Knaddison -
gunnar -
Karoly Negyesi -
Khalid B -
Matt Westgate -
piotr＠mallorn.ii.uj.edu.pl -
Theodore Serbinski -
Will Wyatt