At 2001-10-19T16:22:27Z, Chris Muldrow <muldrow@mac.com> writes:
Also, we're running at traffic somewhere around 60,000-80,000 page views a day--not huge traffic, but more than we had a year ago, certainly. At what traffic point have most folks noticed a need for more server power? Is it 100,000 page views? More? Less?
We are also serving ads to the Zopes from a different Windows 2000 server running Apache and using a PERL process to serve the ads at a rate of between 400,000 and 700,000 ads per day.
Note: I'm a Zope newbie, as anyone reading my last week's worth of postings can tell, but I'm not completely inexperienced at network design. I would strongly recommend the use of a proxy/cache in front of your servers. It sounds as if much of your content is pseudo-static. That is, although it may change, it's likely to do so slowly. Caching servers can make a vast difference in performance in setups like this. For example, suppose that users often go to: http://mynewspaper.com/sports/todays_headlines Why force your Zope to regenerate that page 30,000 times per day when it may only change 3 or 4 times? Zope even has built-in methods for cache management so that you can have it send special headers to the cache servers to tell them how often to re-query specific objects. You may not want to cache a stock ticker at all. OTOH, the current temperature won't drastically change in any given 5 minute interval. I haven't personally used these methods yet (see the first line of my post), but I *can* certify that a properly-configured Squid server can increase your current platform's potential throughput by several hundred percent. -- Kirk Strauser