Posted 4 years ago #
Hi,
I've recently moved from blogger to WP. Although, i am a regular poster to my blog, i donot post every 5 minutes and hence i'm not a big fan of dynamic pages. Is there a plugin somewhere that will let me use WP and publish my blog as static htmls to my webserver? I heard there is something called WP-Statictize but i am unable to find it.
If i am unable to find such a plugin, I guess i'll go back to blogger :(
Thanks for any pointers.
Why would you want to print your posts as a Static page?
WP stores information in the database, offers you permalinks, thus allowing updating / backup to be easily done.
Posted 4 years ago #
I'm looking for this too. Why waste server resources generating pages on every request? It also lets all the caching and HTTP work be handled by Apache rather than re-implementing it in PHP. See Bake, don't Fry for some more thoughts on this.
Try WP-cache.
Posted 4 years ago #
Yes, WP-Cache will give you the same advantages of static files without losing the advantages of dynamic ones.
Posted 4 years ago #
My thoughts Exactly... Why waste server resources!
I too am new to WordPress and am a Long Time GreyMatter user.
The static pages are Much more "server friendly" in that a Very Hefty .htaccess file does not have to be read with each request and sql resources are not used.
I've just downloaded the WP_Cache plug-in and will give it a try. The plug in may very well be the defining factor for a "Total Swith-Over" from GreyMatter.
@johnhouston,
Are you saying that GM with its rebuilding of pages and all the other stuff is less resource waster than WP? :)
Posted 4 years ago #
I think one can always debate this but the fact remains that static pages served by apache will any day be faster than any sophisticated cacheing engine.
This apart, it also gives me an advantage to publish the same blog to multiple servers, using different themes (if i want). Repurposing of content, if you will :)
Posted 4 years ago #
> I think one can always debate this but the fact remains that static pages served by apache will any day be faster than any sophisticated cacheing engine.
Nice, and? HTML 3.01 is faster to parser than XHTML and CSS. man pages are even cheaper.
But the point of software is to save human efforts, not CPUs. That's to say, if you use WP and want to save lot of CPU without losing (well, almost) any dynamic feature including users' preferences, use WP-Cache, which provides order of magnitud improvements (in the same order as static pages).
If you don't like WP and want other blog software that produces static pages and hardly publish any comment in "real time", go ahead... Save CPU time, waste yours :-)
PS: I really don't understand your reasoning. WP gives you lot of nice and useful features, WP-Cache bring the response time --and cpu usage-- down to "almost" as static pages' response time. And everything for free --in every sense--. But, yeah, you are arguing about the difference between "almost" and "same" [time]. Strange, to say the least.
I believe the following tutorial is compatible with WP v1.5.x, but you'll have to do some thinking when it gets to the template modification section, as it only shows parts of the v1.2.x templates and not the v1.5.x themes.
Posted 4 years ago #
I have been surfing blogger blogs for sometime now that I don't see them any faster than WP blogs. In fact, I find them quite slow. WP-Cache is enough for a blog.
Posted 4 years ago #
>PS: I really don't understand your reasoning. WP gives you lot of nice and useful features, WP-Cache
I have never even once argued against those features. Infact i agree with you and that is why i moved to WP from blogger. All i am saying is that it would have been GREAT if i had the ability to publish static pages. Even in static publishing, i could use all those features that you mentioned and got the advantage of publishing to multiple blogs - one optimized for big screens and another one for PDAs. I know there are alternatives but the case in point is the ability to publish to multiple destinations.
Apoorv, if all you're after is "the advantage of publishing to multiple blogs - one optimized for big screens and another one for PDAs," try this plugin: http://dev.wp-plugins.org/browser/wordpress-mobile-edition/trunk/
Posted 4 years ago #
> All i am saying is that it would have been GREAT if i had the ability to publish static pages.
It is "almost" what wp-cache allows to.
>Even in static publishing, i could use all those features that you mentioned
No. With static pages you cannot --for example-- store users' form data as wp [and wp-cache] does .
Posted 4 years ago #
macmanx: Thanks for this. I'll have a look at it. from whatever little i saw, it will still be on the same server. I guess i am expecting to much from a blogging system because i am used to bigger CMSes like vignette and interwoven where you can publish to multiple servers. So i was hoping i would be able to publish to my current blog as well as tripod :) But thanks anyways. I'll have a look at it. The other alternative i am looking at is to write some cron job which will ftp the Wordpress XML feed to whichever server i want and then that server will have pages (phpm perl or even jsp) that will display this feed.
gallir: when i say static publish i understand that certain things like comments and user data will still be dynamic. Please have a look at blogspot and it will be more clear what i mean. The comments part is dynamic in blogspot but your blog entries are all static htmls.
Posted 4 years ago #
I had made my own caching system, but realized that it didn't make that much of a drop in resources even though I was getting ~10k hits a day.
Unless you're running the server off a 386 or have 10 million blog posts, I say don't bother as WordPress isn't making much of a dent at all.
Posted 4 years ago #
WP-Cache (and it's granddaddy, Staticize-Reloaded) cache the output from the generation of a page, and only update the cached version when needed. It is one step from being a pure HTML file (since PHP is needed to bind it all together).
Any site that has 'static stuff on top and dynamic stuff on the bottom' is doing overhead to generate those two differently -- Staticize/Wp-cache do a teeny bit of overhead, and then (unless you get tricky) it all becomes near-static.
I only use Staticize-Reloaded myself on things that are hit heavily and don't have dynamic content, like my RSS feed. My main site has sidebars that are heavily dynamic, and trying to re-code them would be painful. I do, when slashdotted, turn on full Staticizing of the site and give up the dynamic qualities to be able to handle the overload!
-d
CHAITGEAR
Posted 4 years ago #
To apoorv:
> gallir: when i say static publish i understand that certain things like comments and user data will still be dynamic. Please have a look at blogspot and it will be more clear what i mean. The comments part is dynamic in blogspot but your blog entries are all static htmls.
And the advantages over how wp-cache manages static files are... ?
Posted 4 years ago #
To gallir:
Advantages?? I can put the static htmls on any webserver or even multiple webservers if i want with different look and feel.
And again, I completely agree with you about the features of WP :). Its just that i want something extra for my *peculiar* requirements!!
Posted 4 years ago #
Just to add fuel to what is clearly a well-burning fire (though i don't know why it's so) I'll defend and even second apoorv's request... it's completely reasonable under some circumstances to use the publishing metaphor -- publish-static is just as valid as dynamic, they each have appropriate uses, and as pointed out, they can happily co-exist. it's not a weakness if WP doesn't do this, it's a "gosh, would be nice" or "wouldn't it be cool if" feature.
there's no need for acrimony just because he (i'll assume he) raised the issue.
Posted 4 years ago #
Er, ignore this post. I thought this was a new thread on the matter, but it's just a bumped one. lol
This has been discussed before and basically the general consensus is that unless your server is a Pentium I or your site gets slashdotted, it's unneccessary.
I mean, servers are designed to sit there and generate and serve pages.
On one of my WP sites, I was getting around 10k hits a day and there was no noticable load difference between normal WP and a static version. Hell, as it is, it idles around like 0.50 load and there's lots of other sites and apps on the box.
Actually I started having server load problems because I have lots of sql to generate my pages and not fully optimized. So I started using wp-cache2 and things are fine.
I don't miss the dynamic part yet. Thought stat plugins give wrong results.
Posted 4 years ago #
I certainly do hope that wordpress, in the future, will make a version which can generate static pages.
I hereby put my request in the suggestion box.
There's a fundamental truism about programming - the less work that software does, the less it stores in memory, the less it uses the CPU, the more smooth and the more reliable the software is going to be.
Why are many heavily used internet servers so slow to serve pages? Is it not possible that largely it's because of this ridiculous use of CPU time to assemble a page every time a person requests a page?
People seem to be jealous when they speak here, and think that some of wordpress's functionality would be lost if pages were generated in static form. It's not true. Getting down and cleaning up the code at the base level will allow more reliability, more speed, and more functionality.
You mean zealous?
Yes I too noticed that. The best solution is intelligent caching something better than wp-cache 2.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
