<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="midad69ab69050408094369dadfa@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Hi Nevin,
It's great to hear that your site is doing well. It's not so great to
hear that Seaside is having trouble keeping up :). Like Dmitry, I'd
love to hear some more numbers on this - when Seaside's getting up to
half a gig, how many concurrent sessions is that? How many hits on
that day?
As far as I know, you're breaking new ground here - nobody else has
pushed Seaside to that point yet, which means that we've never had a
chance to optimize for it. But I'm more than willing to put in some
time trying to bring that memory footprint back down to a reasonable
size, if you'd like to go that route. And I'm pretty confident that
we can, simply because this isn't something we've tried very hard to
do yet. I also suspect that it'll be a lot less work than
reimplementing your site in another style, and with greater long term
benefits...
Anyway, if you'd like me to take a look, the first step would probably
be to get one of those mammoth images up on FTP somewhere so we can do
some profiling.
Avi
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Avi,<br>
<br>
One of those massive image saves occured yesterday-- the image is
859,821,432 bytes. An image save this morning was 26,238,888 bytes.<br>
<br>
I'm also still on Seaside 2.3, Squeak 3.5, and Comanche 5.x. I can't
help but wonder if the newer Seaside versions do better with memory.<br>
<br>
Nevin<br>
</body>
</html>