3 ms·

I can't tell from the site itself, since it's non-responsive (back to WordPress?), but from the comments here it appears the author objects to Jekyll regenerati

by ionfish 15y ago

I can't tell from the site itself, since it's non-responsive (back to WordPress?), but from the comments here it appears the author objects to Jekyll regenerating the entire site every time. If that's the case then I suggest he tries Hakyll, which has a dependency system built in so that it only rebuilds what it needs when files change. http://jaspervdj.be/hakyll/ http://jaspervdj.be/hakyll/

brandontreb 15y ago
haha ironic that it's crashing now eh? That's the one upside of Jekyll for sure. I was hosting the site on 512MB of ram. Just did a resize to handle the HN traffic, hopefully it comes back online soon. Hakyll looks pretty slick. I'll check it out for sure. Thanks
- metachris 15y ago
  Wow, you left this comment two hours ago, and the site is still down. I see you are hosting on Rackspace. Something going wrong?
- brandontreb 15y ago
  Rackspace. It's taking forever to resize. Site isn't _quite_ down. Just super slow.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  Have you implemented any of the caching tools for WordPress? I also run WordPress on my blog, which is hosted at Dreamhost (shared hosting), which is about the worst you can have. I've never been hit terribly hard, but I did manage to pick up around 2,000 visitors in the span of about 3 hours one time, which is the most my blog has ever seen. WP with WP SuperCache kept it up, even on a shared host. I'd be curious to read a post-mortem once you get the site back up.
  - grecy 15y ago
    I had my wordpress blog on shared Dreamhost for about a year.. I was slowly increasing traffic then I noticed the dreamhost daemons killing off my processes.. after much, much hassle I finally got the offical line of "1000 unique visitors per day is using too much memory for Dreamhost shared - you need to upgrade". I moved to rackspace.
  - benatkin 15y ago
    I'm betting on no. Caching with WordPress.org is as easy to set up as Jekyll, if not easier. With W3 Total Cache or WP Super Cache, performance is roughly equivalent to a baked site being hosted by the same web server. Edit: Oops, I lost, as he already said in another thread that he had WP Super Cache turned on. But it seems to me that 512MB would be enough if the web server was set up properly, and in fact caching was set up so the web server would serve pages directly.

by ionfish 15y ago

brandontreb 15y ago

haha ironic that it's crashing now eh? That's the one upside of Jekyll for sure. I was hosting the site on 512MB of ram. Just did a resize to handle the HN traffic, hopefully it comes back online soon. Hakyll looks pretty slick. I'll check it out for sure. Thanks

metachris 15y ago
Wow, you left this comment two hours ago, and the site is still down. I see you are hosting on Rackspace. Something going wrong?
brandontreb 15y ago
Rackspace. It's taking forever to resize. Site isn't _quite_ down. Just super slow.
bradleyland 15y ago
Have you implemented any of the caching tools for WordPress? I also run WordPress on my blog, which is hosted at Dreamhost (shared hosting), which is about the worst you can have. I've never been hit terribly hard, but I did manage to pick up around 2,000 visitors in the span of about 3 hours one time, which is the most my blog has ever seen. WP with WP SuperCache kept it up, even on a shared host. I'd be curious to read a post-mortem once you get the site back up.
- grecy 15y ago
  I had my wordpress blog on shared Dreamhost for about a year.. I was slowly increasing traffic then I noticed the dreamhost daemons killing off my processes.. after much, much hassle I finally got the offical line of "1000 unique visitors per day is using too much memory for Dreamhost shared - you need to upgrade". I moved to rackspace.
- benatkin 15y ago
  I'm betting on no. Caching with WordPress.org is as easy to set up as Jekyll, if not easier. With W3 Total Cache or WP Super Cache, performance is roughly equivalent to a baked site being hosted by the same web server. Edit: Oops, I lost, as he already said in another thread that he had WP Super Cache turned on. But it seems to me that 512MB would be enough if the web server was set up properly, and in fact caching was set up so the web server would serve pages directly.