Mine is currently at 185 KB. I don't put any details because it's unnecessary for the purpose in which I use Links 2.0. I'm wondering if 185 KB puts a strain on the server. I don't want to get charged more for messing up their system. Is 185 KB still low enough to stay with Links 2.0? I really don't have that kind of money for Links SQL. What would be the maximum size of links.db until I should purchase Links SQL? Thanks!
Jan 8, 2000, 8:50 PM
Enthusiast (944 posts)
Jan 8, 2000, 8:50 PM
Post #2 of 8
Views: 2770
I imagine it depends a lot on the specifics of your server. The server my site is hosted on is apparently quite a cgi speedster. My database is currently at 560k for 3,200 links, and it has shown no signs of slowing down. However, I'll likely be upgrading to SQL pretty soon.
Dan
Dan
The recommended maximum size of flat files to operate efficiently on MOST web servers (no matter their RAM, UPS, etc.) is 1 MG. If you anticipate the size of your database file to exceed this amount, then you should upgrade to SQL as soon as possible.
Regards,
------------------
Eliot Lee
Anthro TECH,L.L.C
www.anthrotech.com
----------------------
Regards,
------------------
Eliot Lee
Anthro TECH,L.L.C
www.anthrotech.com
----------------------
Jan 9, 2000, 10:58 AM
Enthusiast (944 posts)
Jan 9, 2000, 10:58 AM
Post #4 of 8
Views: 2735
I think "efficiently" is pretty open to opinion. I'm sure the flatfile becomes overwhelmed somehwere in the realm of 1 mb, but up to that point is the potential for about 5,000-6,000 links on average. That's a very wide range to look at just the high-end.
Here's what I was referring to by a server's cgi performance. This is taken from the specs for three servers my host makes use of, the slowest being a pretty average configuration:
CGI excution speeds: (primetime averages)
1) 70/sec w/bursts to 140/sec
2) 150/sec w/bursts to 230/sec
3) 190/sec w/bursts to 300/sec
As you can see, there's a very wide range in how fast the scripts can be executed, assuming the database is operating within reasonable limits.
Dan
Here's what I was referring to by a server's cgi performance. This is taken from the specs for three servers my host makes use of, the slowest being a pretty average configuration:
CGI excution speeds: (primetime averages)
1) 70/sec w/bursts to 140/sec
2) 150/sec w/bursts to 230/sec
3) 190/sec w/bursts to 300/sec
As you can see, there's a very wide range in how fast the scripts can be executed, assuming the database is operating within reasonable limits.
Dan
Jan 9, 2000, 2:47 PM
Enthusiast (760 posts)
Jan 9, 2000, 2:47 PM
Post #5 of 8
Views: 2734
I'm located on a dedicated (128MB RAM) using Links 2. Currently the links database has over 5000 links and is over 1MB. No problems in the slightest. No cpu problems and searches are very quick - takes less than 2 to 3 seconds for the more common search term (returning over 3000 results). I've done full cpu testing during peak hours with no problems evident. Plus, no corruption of data files and builds take from 20-25 minutes - bit long but no timeouts.
So results will vary. However, yes, I will be upgrading to LinksSQL in Spring.
Dan
So results will vary. However, yes, I will be upgrading to LinksSQL in Spring.
Dan
Jan 9, 2000, 8:11 PM
Enthusiast (760 posts)
Jan 9, 2000, 8:11 PM
Post #8 of 8
Views: 2719
1. 20-25 minutes rebuild time via the browser. I suppose it's time to use Telnet now that I'm on a dedicated.
2. I use xcite.net. Remember it is a dedicated server - with only 5 domains (all mine). I pay about $250-350 (US) per month. A fair bit I suppose but then traffic varies from 30-50 GB per month - and increasing.
Dan
2. I use xcite.net. Remember it is a dedicated server - with only 5 domains (all mine). I pay about $250-350 (US) per month. A fair bit I suppose but then traffic varies from 30-50 GB per month - and increasing.
Dan