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

Thread: Five hours for a Local Publish

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  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
    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




  4. #4
    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

    >
    >
    >


  5. #5
    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

    >


  6. #6
    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

  7. #7
    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




  8. #8
    jkajfes
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    I also have constructed a website that makes use of tables which I cut and
    pasted from Excel spread sheets. I'm not a website designer or spend any
    time desktop publishing. I'm an end user with little knowledge on this stuff
    and I guess I'm the type of person this whole product is supposed to be
    geared to right? But I've gone and done certainly something stupid that's
    grinding this program practically to a halt speed wise.

    I started uploading my site 3 hours ago it's half way throught the pages...
    I'm in here bitching about it because something's wrong somewhere. So do I
    simply stop using these very simple cut and paste situation from tables in
    excel? What's the alternative for someone like me? Please take it easy on
    the comments! :-)

    I'm looking at the Windows tasks manager right now too... it says Fusion is
    using 98% of the CPU... yet I can use my email, I'm here, I can open up a
    web browser and play on the internet fine while this fusion is churning
    stuff in the background... and I can open other programs, they take time to
    come up but once up I can seem to work unhendered with 2% of what's left of
    the cpu power? amazing...

    task manger is indicating that excel is up and running... I don't have the
    program open or running, yet it's grabbed 31,000k+ of memory... is this
    because I've grabbed a bunch of tables and cut and pasted them into a
    website page and Fusion needs this program open to do something or
    connectivity to it?

    The other thing I'm wondering about is the connectivity to windows resources
    how the program is making use of them, the hooks or whatever you call them,
    things that pass data back and forth... maybe when you reach the upper
    limits of cpu useage something seriously bottlenecks... and you guys because
    you design things very well don't run into this? Is that a possibility?

    You folks with 200-300 pages in sites and the program churns them out in a
    few minutes... amazing wish I had that kind of performance. Obviously I
    would assume with that number of pages some of them might be rather complex
    but you obviously know exactly what your doing... not to get the performance
    hits I'm getting.

    My system's a pentium 4, running XP, cpu is 1.60GHz 512 meg of ram, service
    packs installed etc... I use Zonealarm, only with their virsus stuff... Dell
    Inspiron 8200 system for what that might be worth in a docking station.

    I think it's the way the program handles or translates the code required for
    tables and stuff like that... things like pictures don't seem to be a
    problem from I can see... just the generation of the tables...

    could it have anything to do with that ODBC or OBDC connectivity that's
    included in Windows... I have no idea what I'm talking about here just
    throwing it out...

    When you cut and paste table data... and you go to generate the page is all
    that working being done inside of fusion program period and it's just needs
    processing time to do it... it doesn't rely on anything externally to do
    this?

    any thought appreciated... guess for now I just don't put this on my
    webpages.

    also I'm wondering as you increase the number of pages in your website and
    it gets bigger and bigger is all of your site going into memory or residing
    there? I have some more reading to do. I think I saw posts where some of
    folks create chucks of pages work on them and then open another chuck or
    something like that...






    "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




  9. #9
    Charles
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    I am running the same Dell system but did not copy & paste the tables
    from Excel. I made them all in NOF so I don't think the Excel tables
    are the problem.

    It can't be the number of pages either because the same site skipped
    right along with version 9 with no speed problems at all.

    Everything is running in slow motion. I worked with it for a few days
    but can't stand it any longer. I envy the folks who were able to move
    up to version 10 without these speed problems. I have gone back to
    version 9. I'll try not to think about the $110.00 I spent for a
    program that I can't use.

    Charles

    On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:15:05 -0500, "jkajfes" <jkajfes@autoq.com>
    wrote:

    >I also have constructed a website that makes use of tables which I cut and
    >pasted from Excel spread sheets. I'm not a website designer or spend any
    >time desktop publishing. I'm an end user with little knowledge on this stuff
    >and I guess I'm the type of person this whole product is supposed to be
    >geared to right? But I've gone and done certainly something stupid that's
    >grinding this program practically to a halt speed wise.
    >
    >I started uploading my site 3 hours ago it's half way throught the pages...
    >I'm in here bitching about it because something's wrong somewhere. So do I
    >simply stop using these very simple cut and paste situation from tables in
    >excel? What's the alternative for someone like me? Please take it easy on
    >the comments! :-)
    >
    >I'm looking at the Windows tasks manager right now too... it says Fusion is
    >using 98% of the CPU... yet I can use my email, I'm here, I can open up a
    >web browser and play on the internet fine while this fusion is churning
    >stuff in the background... and I can open other programs, they take time to
    >come up but once up I can seem to work unhendered with 2% of what's left of
    >the cpu power? amazing...
    >
    >task manger is indicating that excel is up and running... I don't have the
    >program open or running, yet it's grabbed 31,000k+ of memory... is this
    >because I've grabbed a bunch of tables and cut and pasted them into a
    >website page and Fusion needs this program open to do something or
    >connectivity to it?
    >
    >The other thing I'm wondering about is the connectivity to windows resources
    >how the program is making use of them, the hooks or whatever you call them,
    >things that pass data back and forth... maybe when you reach the upper
    >limits of cpu useage something seriously bottlenecks... and you guys because
    >you design things very well don't run into this? Is that a possibility?
    >
    >You folks with 200-300 pages in sites and the program churns them out in a
    >few minutes... amazing wish I had that kind of performance. Obviously I
    >would assume with that number of pages some of them might be rather complex
    >but you obviously know exactly what your doing... not to get the performance
    >hits I'm getting.
    >
    >My system's a pentium 4, running XP, cpu is 1.60GHz 512 meg of ram, service
    >packs installed etc... I use Zonealarm, only with their virsus stuff... Dell
    >Inspiron 8200 system for what that might be worth in a docking station.
    >
    >I think it's the way the program handles or translates the code required for
    >tables and stuff like that... things like pictures don't seem to be a
    >problem from I can see... just the generation of the tables...
    >
    >could it have anything to do with that ODBC or OBDC connectivity that's
    >included in Windows... I have no idea what I'm talking about here just
    >throwing it out...
    >
    >When you cut and paste table data... and you go to generate the page is all
    >that working being done inside of fusion program period and it's just needs
    >processing time to do it... it doesn't rely on anything externally to do
    >this?
    >
    >any thought appreciated... guess for now I just don't put this on my
    >webpages.
    >
    >also I'm wondering as you increase the number of pages in your website and
    >it gets bigger and bigger is all of your site going into memory or residing
    >there? I have some more reading to do. I think I saw posts where some of
    >folks create chucks of pages work on them and then open another chuck or
    >something like that...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >"RT" <larry@aol.com> wrote in message
    >news:MPG.1fda13db78ec1364989690@news.netobjects.c om...
    >> 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

    >


  10. #10
    jkajfes
    Guest

    Default Re: Five hours for a Local Publish

    Charles thanks for your input... I'll mention your findings when they reply
    to the ticket again... it's so frustrating slow back and forth through
    e-mail... worse than a CB unit... they'll have to acknowledge some kind of
    problem wether they like it or not... others are complaining so at least I'm
    not the first one reporting it...
    I'll bet it's some type of stupid connectivity thing somewhere... It's at
    95% now from 9am this morning... I'm going to bed and we'll see what on the
    computer by morning... I have this feeling though it's finally hung up...


    "Charles" <Charles@nowhere.net> wrote in message
    news:gr8kn2h8ofh6gpcothn2ldo4qgh8u0j5k6@4ax.com...
    >I am running the same Dell system but did not copy & paste the tables
    > from Excel. I made them all in NOF so I don't think the Excel tables
    > are the problem.
    >
    > It can't be the number of pages either because the same site skipped
    > right along with version 9 with no speed problems at all.
    >
    > Everything is running in slow motion. I worked with it for a few days
    > but can't stand it any longer. I envy the folks who were able to move
    > up to version 10 without these speed problems. I have gone back to
    > version 9. I'll try not to think about the $110.00 I spent for a
    > program that I can't use.
    >
    > Charles
    >
    > On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:15:05 -0500, "jkajfes" <jkajfes@autoq.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>I also have constructed a website that makes use of tables which I cut and
    >>pasted from Excel spread sheets. I'm not a website designer or spend any
    >>time desktop publishing. I'm an end user with little knowledge on this
    >>stuff
    >>and I guess I'm the type of person this whole product is supposed to be
    >>geared to right? But I've gone and done certainly something stupid that's
    >>grinding this program practically to a halt speed wise.
    >>
    >>I started uploading my site 3 hours ago it's half way throught the
    >>pages...
    >>I'm in here bitching about it because something's wrong somewhere. So do I
    >>simply stop using these very simple cut and paste situation from tables in
    >>excel? What's the alternative for someone like me? Please take it easy on
    >>the comments! :-)
    >>
    >>I'm looking at the Windows tasks manager right now too... it says Fusion
    >>is
    >>using 98% of the CPU... yet I can use my email, I'm here, I can open up a
    >>web browser and play on the internet fine while this fusion is churning
    >>stuff in the background... and I can open other programs, they take time
    >>to
    >>come up but once up I can seem to work unhendered with 2% of what's left
    >>of
    >>the cpu power? amazing...
    >>
    >>task manger is indicating that excel is up and running... I don't have the
    >>program open or running, yet it's grabbed 31,000k+ of memory... is this
    >>because I've grabbed a bunch of tables and cut and pasted them into a
    >>website page and Fusion needs this program open to do something or
    >>connectivity to it?
    >>
    >>The other thing I'm wondering about is the connectivity to windows
    >>resources
    >>how the program is making use of them, the hooks or whatever you call
    >>them,
    >>things that pass data back and forth... maybe when you reach the upper
    >>limits of cpu useage something seriously bottlenecks... and you guys
    >>because
    >>you design things very well don't run into this? Is that a possibility?
    >>
    >>You folks with 200-300 pages in sites and the program churns them out in a
    >>few minutes... amazing wish I had that kind of performance. Obviously I
    >>would assume with that number of pages some of them might be rather
    >>complex
    >>but you obviously know exactly what your doing... not to get the
    >>performance
    >>hits I'm getting.
    >>
    >>My system's a pentium 4, running XP, cpu is 1.60GHz 512 meg of ram,
    >>service
    >>packs installed etc... I use Zonealarm, only with their virsus stuff...
    >>Dell
    >>Inspiron 8200 system for what that might be worth in a docking station.
    >>
    >>I think it's the way the program handles or translates the code required
    >>for
    >>tables and stuff like that... things like pictures don't seem to be a
    >>problem from I can see... just the generation of the tables...
    >>
    >>could it have anything to do with that ODBC or OBDC connectivity that's
    >>included in Windows... I have no idea what I'm talking about here just
    >>throwing it out...
    >>
    >>When you cut and paste table data... and you go to generate the page is
    >>all
    >>that working being done inside of fusion program period and it's just
    >>needs
    >>processing time to do it... it doesn't rely on anything externally to do
    >>this?
    >>
    >>any thought appreciated... guess for now I just don't put this on my
    >>webpages.
    >>
    >>also I'm wondering as you increase the number of pages in your website and
    >>it gets bigger and bigger is all of your site going into memory or
    >>residing
    >>there? I have some more reading to do. I think I saw posts where some of
    >>folks create chucks of pages work on them and then open another chuck or
    >>something like that...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>"RT" <larry@aol.com> wrote in message
    >>news:MPG.1fda13db78ec1364989690@news.netobjects. com...
    >>> 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

    >>




Posting Permissions

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