[pLog-general] Your thoughts on 1.1
Jon Daley
plogworld at daley.snurgle.org
Mon Apr 11 14:32:55 GMT 2005
Do you have a side by side comparison of the two?
This is completely not what I have seen.
Compare this server: http://snurgle.org/~jondaley/plog/ (plog 1.0.1 trunk,
a machine heavily loaded with 20 users actively logged in most of the
time, uptime generally reports 3 to 4) running over a 768kbps DSL line)
to this machine: http://sca.salemsattic.com/ (plog 0.3.2, no idea about
the machine specs, network connection is much faster than 768kpbs)
When I upgraded snurgle, the speed increased. I don't have numbers to
support that, only a feeling. The machine has: 400Mhz intel processor,
512MB RAM, 5 apache processes, taking 60MBs currently. With the 218
processes and 23 users currently using it, I would think if any
machine would be slow running plog, it would be this one.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, michael wrote:
> Smarty Caching turned on.
> plog 1.0 is slower.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plog-general-bounces at devel.plogworld.net
> [mailto:plog-general-bounces at devel.plogworld.net] On Behalf Of Jon Daley
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:23 AM
> To: plog-general at devel.plogworld.net
> Subject: RE: [pLog-general] Your thoughts on 1.1
>
> You mean if you have caching turned off it is slower? Certainly
>
> with caching 1.0 is significantly faster. Every time I look at a 0.3.2
> blog I think, hmm.. why is this taking so long.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, michael wrote:
>> Hi Oscar,
>> Thanks for the update. Sounds good.
>>
>> I did not want to blame plog for this right away.... but it does seem
>> that plog 1.0 is much slower. I was checking into other factors since
> I
>> am on a new server, but I am certain now that the memory usage has
>> caused lag.
>> So, great to hear about new work being done to improve this.
>>
>> A quick feature request that may be small enough to be considered for
>> next release...
>>
>> - extend custom fields to optionally be added to resource items (add
>> more metadata)
>>
>> michael
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: plog-general-bounces at devel.plogworld.net
>> [mailto:plog-general-bounces at devel.plogworld.net] On Behalf Of Oscar
>> Renalias
>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 6:50 AM
>> To: plog-general at devel.plogworld.net
>> Subject: [pLog-general] Your thoughts on 1.1
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> just wanted to know your opinion about 1.1.
>>
>> I was thinking that the development cycle for 1.0 was way too long and
>> exhausting and that the amount of changes was too big (the amount of
>> bugs has proven to be proportional to the amount of changes
>> introduced) That's probably one of the reasons why we have had so many
>> support requests in the forums so my idea is to shorten the
>> development cycle, even if that means bothering users with upgrades to
>> their installations every 2-3 months.
>>
>> Ben has already started to work on improving the performance in 1.1
>> and the results are more than promising even though work on that front
>> will continue. Although I never thought that pLog is slow when using
>> the right setup, any performance improvement is good :-) Believe me,
>> these changes are so promising that they are enough to warrant a new
>> release.
>>
>> Since users only care about new features, we can take Ben's
>> improvements, throw in some smaller candy features for users to be
>> happy and we have a 1.1 release.These are some of the smallish
>> features that I have in mind:
>>
>> - new screens to see all trackbacks and comments.
>>
>> - everything searchable in the admin backend, so that we can search
>> categories, users or even links (useful when we've got a lot of pages
>> full of these items)
>>
>> - possibilty to upload new files through the pop-up window that allows
>> to insert resources to posts in the "new post" page.
>>
>> - integration of the anti-spam filter with trackbacks.
>>
>> Other big features such as 'friends list', moblogging or integration
>> with other tools such as phpbb, vbulletin or mambo will have to wait.
>> Basically because of the reasons described above, because I don't feel
>> so motivated anymore and because it's time to allow new people to join
>> the team and bring new energy. So if anybody wants to take these
>> challenges and work on them, be my guest. If not, then we'll have to
>> wait.
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>> Oscar
>> _______________________________________________
>> pLog-general mailing list
>> pLog-general at devel.plogworld.net
>> http://devel.plogworld.net/mailman/listinfo/plog-general
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pLog-general mailing list
>> pLog-general at devel.plogworld.net
>> http://devel.plogworld.net/mailman/listinfo/plog-general
>>
>
> **************************************************************
> * Jonathan M. Daley * We are trying to get *
> * * unemployment to go up and I *
> * jondaley at snurgle.org * think we're going to succeed. *
> * * -- Ronald Reagan *
> * www.snurgle.org/~jondaley * *
> **************************************************************
> _______________________________________________
> pLog-general mailing list
> pLog-general at devel.plogworld.net
> http://devel.plogworld.net/mailman/listinfo/plog-general
>
> _______________________________________________
> pLog-general mailing list
> pLog-general at devel.plogworld.net
> http://devel.plogworld.net/mailman/listinfo/plog-general
>
**************************************************************
* * "I think that too much media *
* Jonathan M. Daley * in the hands of one powerful *
* * entity or one individual is a *
* jondaley at snurgle.org * mistake. I think it runs *
* * counter to the foundation of *
* www.snurgle.org/~jondaley * our country. I think it runs *
* * counter to the need for *
* * Americans to know that they *
* * are getting news and *
* * information from multiple *
* * sources that are not *
* * singularly controlled." *
* * -- John Kerry, June 2004 *
**************************************************************
More information about the pLog-general
mailing list