Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Five hours for a Local Publish

  1. #1
    Charles
    Guest

    Default Five hours for a Local Publish

    I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
    with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
    wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
    problem.

    I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
    with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
    entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
    shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
    machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.

    I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
    so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
    publish a site is a bit over the top.

    I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?

    Charles

  2. #2
    Brian H
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    Yes. Scan entries in this NG since the 27th and you'll see you are not
    alone.
    BrianH

    Charles wrote:

    > I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
    >
    > Charles


  3. #3
    RT
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    In article <r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com>,
    Charles@nowhere.net says...
    > I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
    > with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
    > wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
    > problem.
    >
    > I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
    > with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
    > entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
    > shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
    > machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
    >
    > I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
    > so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
    > publish a site is a bit over the top.
    >
    > I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
    >
    > Charles
    >

    I just did a publish of a large site(100 pages) with nof9.1. It took 2
    minutes. Five hours with 10 seems ridiculus.
    RT

  4. #4
    Trimdoner
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    Up to now I had only really played about with NOF10 to see what's new, and
    imported a seven page simple site - no problems.
    After reading comments about 10 being slow, I was starting to worry I'd
    bought another NOF8. (Long story, but MX, 7, 7.5 and 9 all worked great for
    me. 8 was a no-go)

    So, I've saved a 211 page (some very heavy pages!) from a NOF 9.1 estate
    agents site to template, then new site from template into 10.

    Local publish took 2 mins 20secs without any hickups. Changing from page to
    page is no more than 2 or 3 secs, and some of these pages are 5000px long
    with lots of 125x94px jpgs.

    The only thing I probably have different to most people is Autosave is
    disabled. I'm in the habit of saving manually every time I'm happy with the
    changes I'e made. (That way if I make a pigs ear of something I can go back
    to the last good save)
    System is a standard Acer with 512mb, 2.6 AMD and 80gb HD

    Ken


    "Brian H" <webmaster@forExyzsitecomputing.net> wrote in message
    news:ekpoig$ft36@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
    > Yes. Scan entries in this NG since the 27th and you'll see you are not
    > alone.
    > BrianH
    >
    > Charles wrote:
    >
    > > I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
    > >
    > > Charles




  5. #5
    Brian H
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    This is certainly encouraging. Thanks! It is also a good reminder that
    the best way to migrate sites between versions is always to export to a
    template and import into the next version rather than try to open the
    NOD directly.

    BrianH
    Trimdoner wrote:
    > Up to now I had only really played about with NOF10 to see what's new, and
    > imported a seven page simple site - no problems.
    > After reading comments about 10 being slow, I was starting to worry I'd
    > bought another NOF8. (Long story, but MX, 7, 7.5 and 9 all worked great for
    > me. 8 was a no-go)
    >
    > So, I've saved a 211 page (some very heavy pages!) from a NOF 9.1 estate
    > agents site to template, then new site from template into 10.
    >
    > Local publish took 2 mins 20secs without any hickups. Changing from page to
    > page is no more than 2 or 3 secs, and some of these pages are 5000px long
    > with lots of 125x94px jpgs.
    >
    > The only thing I probably have different to most people is Autosave is
    > disabled. I'm in the habit of saving manually every time I'm happy with the
    > changes I'e made. (That way if I make a pigs ear of something I can go back
    > to the last good save)
    > System is a standard Acer with 512mb, 2.6 AMD and 80gb HD
    >
    > Ken
    >
    >
    > "Brian H" <webmaster@forExyzsitecomputing.net> wrote in message
    > news:ekpoig$ft36@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
    >
    >>Yes. Scan entries in this NG since the 27th and you'll see you are not
    >>alone.
    >>BrianH
    >>
    >>Charles wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
    >>>
    >>>Charles

    >
    >
    >


  6. #6
    Trimdoner
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    One caveat to my previous statement - I just noticed that the Page Design
    seems to use a different character set for display- a £ (GB Pound) signs
    show as ? even though page preview and published page shows £ signs
    correctly.

    A bug, or have I missed a new setting somewhere?

    "RT" <larry@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1fda13db78ec1364989690@news.netobjects.co m...
    > In article <r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com>,
    > Charles@nowhere.net says...
    > > I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
    > > with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
    > > wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
    > > problem.
    > >
    > > I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
    > > with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
    > > entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
    > > shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
    > > machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
    > >
    > > I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
    > > so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
    > > publish a site is a bit over the top.
    > >
    > > I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
    > >
    > > Charles
    > >

    > I just did a publish of a large site(100 pages) with nof9.1. It took 2
    > minutes. Five hours with 10 seems ridiculus.
    > RT




  7. #7
    Ian Lewis
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    I'e just locally published a site of 75 pages (with elements in it going
    back to NOF4) and it took 25 seconds. But I know from the Beta group that
    there have been a few people who have had terrible performance issues with
    NOF10. Nobody seems to have discovered a common reason yet. My PC is pretty
    ancient, and I was running NOF 10 on a virtual machine within it with no
    problems. But the age of the gear doesn't seem to make any difference to
    whether you get this problem or not. Most pepople seem fine, though.
    Ian

    "Charles" <Charles@nowhere.net> wrote in message
    news:r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com...
    >I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
    > with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
    > wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
    > problem.
    >
    > I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
    > with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
    > entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
    > shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
    > machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
    >
    > I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
    > so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
    > publish a site is a bit over the top.
    >
    > I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
    >
    > Charles




  8. #8
    Ben Geurts
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    I am having a huge problem with 10 being slow. I tried just about everything
    to increase speed.
    I tried to generate my Christmas site with 245 pages (yes it is that time of
    the year www.anoldfashionedchristmas.com) and it is a complete drama. I
    decided to go back to 9 to update my site. Hope someone can give us some
    tips to this speed problem.

    Ben.

    "Charles" <Charles@nowhere.net> schreef in bericht
    news:r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com...
    >I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
    > with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
    > wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
    > problem.
    >
    > I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
    > with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
    > entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
    > shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
    > machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
    >
    > I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
    > so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
    > publish a site is a bit over the top.
    >
    > I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
    >
    > Charles




  9. #9
    Chuck «BeyondFusion»
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    All of you with speed problems...

    Which anti-virus, anti-spyware and firewalls are you using?

    There has to be a common thread here.

    I've seen no slowdowns on any computer I own where I've tested 10.

    --
    Chuck Joslin
    BeyondFusion.com - Your Fusion Community
    www.beyondfusion.com

    Register domain names at www.awavedomains.com

    "Ben Geurts" <ben.geurts@chello.nl> wrote in message
    news:ekq8a1$h9018@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com. ..
    >I am having a huge problem with 10 being slow. I tried just about
    >everything to increase speed.
    > I tried to generate my Christmas site with 245 pages (yes it is that time
    > of the year www.anoldfashionedchristmas.com) and it is a complete drama. I
    > decided to go back to 9 to update my site. Hope someone can give us some
    > tips to this speed problem.
    >
    > Ben.
    >
    > "Charles" <Charles@nowhere.net> schreef in bericht
    > news:r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com...
    >>I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
    >> with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
    >> wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
    >> problem.
    >>
    >> I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
    >> with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
    >> entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
    >> shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
    >> machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
    >>
    >> I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
    >> so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
    >> publish a site is a bit over the top.
    >>
    >> I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
    >>
    >> Charles

    >
    >




  10. #10
    Charles
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    Okay, this report tells me that the number of pages is not a factor
    and you don't necessarily need a super fast computer.

    (211 pages on an Acer with 512mb, 2.6 AMD and it published in less
    than 3 minutes)

    The site that took 5 hours to publish is very heavy with tables with
    70 or more rows in each one. The pages are over 9300px long. It takes
    10-12 seconds to switch from one page to another. I have a sneaking
    suspicion that the tables may be what is choking NOF 10.

    I would test it on another site that uses fewer and/or smaller tables
    but I don't want to take the chance of loosing the system for several
    hours again.

    Charles


    On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 19:52:21 -0000, "Trimdoner"
    <ken@lrcars.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

    >Up to now I had only really played about with NOF10 to see what's new, and
    >imported a seven page simple site - no problems.
    >After reading comments about 10 being slow, I was starting to worry I'd
    >bought another NOF8. (Long story, but MX, 7, 7.5 and 9 all worked great for
    >me. 8 was a no-go)
    >
    >So, I've saved a 211 page (some very heavy pages!) from a NOF 9.1 estate
    >agents site to template, then new site from template into 10.
    >
    >Local publish took 2 mins 20secs without any hickups. Changing from page to
    >page is no more than 2 or 3 secs, and some of these pages are 5000px long
    >with lots of 125x94px jpgs.
    >
    >The only thing I probably have different to most people is Autosave is
    >disabled. I'm in the habit of saving manually every time I'm happy with the
    >changes I'e made. (That way if I make a pigs ear of something I can go back
    >to the last good save)
    >System is a standard Acer with 512mb, 2.6 AMD and 80gb HD
    >
    >Ken
    >
    >
    >"Brian H" <webmaster@forExyzsitecomputing.net> wrote in message
    >news:ekpoig$ft36@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com. ..
    >> Yes. Scan entries in this NG since the 27th and you'll see you are not
    >> alone.
    >> BrianH
    >>
    >> Charles wrote:
    >>
    >> > I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
    >> >
    >> > Charles

    >


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •