HW requirements
Wouldn't it make sence to add some min and recomande HW requirements here?
www.sitefinity.com/.../system-requirements.aspx
Min 200 MB RAM
500 MB RAM recomanded
and so on?
Markus
Hello Markus,
This makes a lot of sense! And if I should be honest, it's one of the top requested things. We are working on load and stress testing infrastructure, as well as optimizations.
We will come up with system requirements in different environments very soon.
Thanks once again!
Best wishes,
Georgi
the Telerik team
Dear Georgi
Once you have a stress testing infrastucture it would be also nice how the different browsers influcence the speed of the administration back end.
Me for one I have the feeling that chrome really beats IE on this matter. But this is maybe only on my machine.
Markus
Dear Georgi
I am thinking of moving some of my site to the US because I get more HW for the same price vs. less HW but close server location CH - CH (instad of CH - US)
I was wondering how much of the speed of Sitefinity depends on RAM and how much on the speed of my internet connection and responsetime in ms.
So here is an absolute guess questions for you.
Would you rather have 200 MB RAM in your own country
or 1500 MB RAM in the US (longer way)
I have often noticed that SF take quite a while when accessed the first time (happens after all app_pool receicling which is done by my provider 4 times a day)
So therefore the question if more RAM would do a SF site more good then having it overseas.
Again this is a personal your opinion question.
Markus
Hi Markus,
I like guess questions :)
Would you rather have 200 MB RAM in your own country
or 1500 MB RAM in the US (longer way)
I would rather prefer more ram, especially if my visitors are international. Even if they are not, I would most properly prefer better hosting. But it really depends on the web site. More RAM will definitely help.
All the best,Dear Georgi
At the moment Sitefinity requires 500 MB of RAM.
QUOTE from February
This makes a lot of sense! And if I should be honest, it's one of the
top requested things. We are working on load and stress testing
infrastructure, as well as optimizations.
We will come up with system requirements in different environments very soon.
UNQUOTE
How are we doing on this front. Is there any outlook for Q2 where we are heading?
Markus
Hello Markus,
Internal tests show around 400mb usage right now. We are preparing some great improvements for the 4.2 release though.
Regards,Dear Georgi
Thanks for your open feedback. Since SF is over 250 MB at the moment the important part is that it will never top 500 MB (thats the limit on Arvixe's BusinessPlan).
How much does FrontEnd and BackEnd contribute to this 400 MB. And is there a large difference if you have 1 or 4 people working simultanously back-end and/or if you have 10 or 100 visitors at the same time.
Or will 5 back-end users easely top 500 MB?
Markus
PS: I am looking forward so much to 4.2. The last 4.1 SP1 was a huge step into the right direction and I guess if only half the reported bugs and improvements make it into 4.2 SF is on its way to old glory. Thank's as usuall to all the folks at Telerik doing a great job and listening to our feedback.
Hi Markus Berchtold,
How much does FrontEnd and BackEnd contribute to this 400 MB. And is there a large difference if you have 1 or 4 people working simultanously back-end and/or if you have 10 or 100 visitors at the same time
Most of the memory is consumed in the backend operations. Once these operations complete - most of the things are cached and the front end should work nicely. There should be much difference between 10 and 100 visitors if the pages are cached. If they are not cached, there will be difference mostly on the CPU usage.
With the 4.2 release, we are going to do huge improvements to the Sitemap, which will reduce the memory usage both in the front end and the back end.
Dear Georgi
Thanks for the feedback.
I hope it's a type : There shouldn't be much difference vs. there should be much difference.
Concerning the CPU usage when not cached I will conduct some tests tonight because at the moment I feel that SF take a whole lot longer to present a page with SP 2 when not cached then it did with SP1 - but this is just something I feel at the moment.
Looking forward to 4.2 - At the moment I just hope for improvements and no new features :-)
Markus