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
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… ?
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!!
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.
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.
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.
