__/ [ Paul B ] on Tuesday 14 March 2006 21:19 \__
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:24:18 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>__/ [ Paul B ] on Tuesday 14 March 2006 20:10 \__
>>> I had an internal page bookmoarked, which is no longer present.
>>> Went to home page, just to be presented with this :
>>> Under Construction
>>> The site you are trying to view does not currently have a default
>>> page. It may be in the process of being upgraded and configured.
>>> Please try this site again later. If you still experience the problem,
>>> try contacting the Web site administrator.
>>> Bloody marvelous.
>>That site gets a tonage of traffic[*] and was very slow (if not
>>unavailable) at times.
> yep, esp around update times ;)
That's when it matters most. The site gets popular only when spikes hit. It
is otherwise not all that useful.
>>They must be upgrading the server or migrating. The site uses IIS
>>which, let us face it, is known to be worse than Apache and LiteSpeed in
>>terms of capacity. *smile*
> Would have thought a site that small, the upgrade could have been made
> invisible to the user.
It depends on the nature of the site. You can mirror the site, then test the
new copy and re-tunnel the 'aqueduct' when ready. Based on some bad
experience with wordpress.org over Christmas (news design, new servers to
handle load, LiteSpeed instead of Apache), things can go very wrong, for a
period of no less than a week, despite testing. For just a collection of
HTML's, a migration is simple. Here we talk about sites that involve a
programmatic framework. Static IP's to change, DNS servers, databases,
installations of software on new server, changing static addresses for
administering the site, etc.
>>The last time a successful site I use went down, it come back bigger,
>>stronger and more furious (well, are we talking about sites still?).
>>Still hugely popular for royalty-free, shareable stocks.
>>[*] Judging by Netscraft and Alexa