[bluesage]

Hi,

have recently started looking into generating content as static html rather than connecting to the database everytime and was wandering what opinions are on both ways of working ?

If im not mistaken most CMS software (drupal, joomla, typo3) dont generate static content. My question would then be, for high traffic website or simply for large corporate level websites does this cause any problems ? (question would be for those that have experience with certain CMS's)

thanks for any help provided

[Dusteh]

I'm pretty certain Drupal has static page caching - I'm sure something as heavy-duty as Typo3 would do as well.

If you are building a potentially heavy traffic site then you would expect to be paying for a dedicated server, these CMS systems are designed to handle large scale sites, as long as the hardware is up to the job, something like Drupal or Typo should be as well.

[hobolooter]

Use both. Caching for content that hasn't changed, pull from the database when content has changed.

[dudefromthenet]

For a larger websites a good CMS can make things easier. But it will be slower. I made benchmarks. I have created a website with typo3 (php) and my PC could serve 30pages per second (without images etc.). The same website in a static HTML version (the user does not see a difference) could be served by the same PC around 3000times per second which is an increase of 100x!
Drupal is much faster than typo3, but a static HTML will be always faster.

I programmed a simple CMS myself that creates static pages if possible which are then stored on the server. With this approach it is very fast, but also not as flexible as a normal CMS.

[bluesage]

thanks for the responses. Typo seems to be getting less attention as of late, I myself have looked into it, but having to learn their TypoScript is a downside for me.

I am currently designing my own lightweight CMS, and will probably make use of both static and dynamically generated content depending on the type of site Im building with it.

It makes sense that static content is faster, as there is no need to query. I imagine for high traffic websites, static content will helpful on the database workload.

[dudefromthenet]

Originally Posted by bluesage

It makes sense that static content is faster, as there is no need to query. I imagine for high traffic websites, static content will helpful on the database workload.

Most big website also use more than one server which will make it even more faster (load balancing etc.). And not everything can be solved by creating static content. For example user postings need a dynamic approach.