That's just storage/static serving though, right?

Post #365,079 by drook 10/8/12 2:57:03 AM Reply	That's just storage/static serving though, right? I still need the Wordpress hosting. And everyplace I've looked with the same (alleged) horsepower as my current host is comparable in price. I think the better bet is to find a good WP theme designer and have him clean up the hacked-up mess plus lots of plugins that I've got now into something more efficient. One-time payment and my performance is better forever. (Or until it's time for a redesign.) -- Drew
Post #365,080 by Another Scott 10/8/12 7:50:57 AM Reply	Efficiency's better, true. But... A lot of WordPress sites seem to be nice and snappy after a re-design, but something seems to happen to them over time. E.g. Balloon-Juice was amazingly fast after it's recent re-design, but over time has it developed things like reader responses showing up 3x per submission, creaking slowness under higher-than-normal loads, front-pagers being unable to embed videos for unknown reasons, etc. (It seems like stopping and restarting the commenting database part of the site helped some for some of these issues, but that's obviously not a permanent fix.) IOW, I wouldn't count on a one-time clean-up of the code. I'd think you'd want to find someone who can de-lint the site and also be available for tweaks and fixes a few weeks/months down the road when the inevitable storm of FYWPs hit. But maybe you can handle that after the initial fix (of course finding time for that is a problem...). My $0.02. Good luck. Cheers, Scott.
Post #365,083 by folkert 10/8/12 8:57:22 AM Reply	Yes... Trust me when I say this: CDN served content takes a CRAPLOAD of load off your site. You serve only HTML from your site (and any AJAX calls (ie: jquery...etc)). We we went from serving all content from our webservers, to serving static from S3/Cloudfront for all images, LARGEFILES, CSS, MP3, PDFs...etc. All I can say is wow. Then your machine only has to serve the actual content, not the static files. Comparison, one of our customers chooses not to use the CDN, for fear of files being stolen. They are being charged for about 200GB per month. (our hosting is very specialized). Plus our hosting infrastructure has to go through a Web Application Firewall (WAF) for all web content served (including all images/css/pdfs/etc). Our own website, get about the same hits and we host all of our images and css and javascript on CDN... plus we also host all of our main products file on S3/Cloudfront. When we switched to using cloudfront for all that our colo traffic for our traffic dropped about 85%. We haven't bumped our 95th percentile limit in a LONG LONG time now. Also, page load times improved considerably, because of multiple requests to multiple locations, spreading traffic around and because most of the rendered info does have to traverse the "WAF" Plus you don't get problems like your Avatar being broken... if you get my drift. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #365,085 by mvitale 10/8/12 9:18:06 AM Reply	That part is not to be overlooked... Also, page load times improved considerably, because of multiple requests to multiple locations... As I recall from reading about improving response time a year or so ago, most browsers will only send 2 concurrent requests to the same hostname (such as www.clygm.com). That's why you'll often see larger websites with names like img1.corp.com and img2.corp.com. Every other image gets served from the alternate hostname, and thus 4 images can be served to your browser at once. -Mike @MikeVitale42 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

Welcome to IWETHEY!