Comments on: Site disruption

By: Gunner

Gunner — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:20:41 +0000

I had one insta hit in 2004 on my site and blogspot held its own nicely. I’m simply too small to pay for my own domain at the current time.

By: Little Miss Attila

Little Miss Attila — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:32:29 +0000

“My Complication Had Complications.”

And my Instalanche had an Instalanche. (Via . . . good old whatshisface.)…

By: Chad Everett

Chad Everett — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:56:58 +0000

Interesting thought, but that’s not necessarily the truth.

A: Even a site that publishes dynamically can override the process for a single page by simply putting up a static page. If the page is found, the process is short-circuited.

B: The use of caching will not prevent the spawning of which you speak, but it will lower it dramatically. Rather than a request for each page individually, you get a request for a page – if it’s been built recently, you get that. If not, you get a new one.

Nothing is wrong with dynamic publishing if implemented correctly.

By: Kathy K

Kathy K — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:47:03 +0000

There’s a caching plugin for WP that would help.

By: Stacy

Stacy — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:45:08 +0000

It might help to note that the reason it was murdering the server was due to your site set to dynamically publish the archive pages. Each request for the permalink in question was spawning a new process, which a hundreds of requests per second, rapidly ate up all available resources. At any rate, large traffic sites should emphatically NOT publish dynamically. Maybe this tidbit will help others in the same boat.