Very slow checkout

[jonwilliams]

Thanks John - appreciate the tips.

I have now changed to my hosts Unix servers and (when the site is working - see below) the speed issue seems a lot better.

However, I now get messages that there are errors on the pages that load (annoying but not critical), but more critically most of the pages beyong the home page can't be accessed at all more than half of the time - I just get a url not found message. It's wierd - sometimes they are there and sometimes not.

I can't put the site live until these problems are sorted as I have already had Worldpay tell me the site has too many problems once, so this issue is now holding up my income generation!

I am not a professional web designer although I have a copy of Developer - I have several retail concepts I want to launch - so although I know my way around html etc quite a bit for an amateur, it is quite possible that I have mucked something up somewhere.

The wierd thing is that these problems did not exist on the Windows server, where it was only the speed issue that caused a problem. Is Unix less tolerant of JavaScript mistakes for example - I have lots of "extras" e.g. drop-down section lists, login bar etc etc.

Should I still talk to my hosts about the topics you raised John - do you think my current problems may be to do with the servers ability to execute perl scripts, or are your points only relevant to the speed issue?

Thanks

Jon

[wfl]

Jon

There shouldn't be any issues about java script as this is executed on the client and not the host.

The problem looks to be in the directory paths and file names.

It looks as if the path from /cgi-bin to /acatalog is wrong.

In Advanced>Network Setup have you tested your set up? There should be no errors here.

Do you have an FTP browser that you can see where the folders are on your site and how they have been named. Generally both /cgi-bin and /acatalog should be off the root.

The files you have hard coded are indeed in the /acatalog folder but Actinic uses *.html and you have used *.htm

[jonwilliams]

Alastair - thanks. Yes, I thought the paths were not right. When I first noticed this problem in a post on this thread a couple of pages back, I thought I had solved it by changing the path from the cgi-bin to the acatalog directory to a relative one as this seemed to do the trick. But I don't think I have changed anything since and now it doesn't work. Yes, I have FTP (Leech) and the cgi-bin and acatalog directories are both off the root. The network setup test worked OK last time I tried it. I have pasted the current settings below. (One question - should the "Use relative CGI-BIN URLs in Catalog Pages" box be checked cos it isn't currently?)

Cheers
Jon

PS Thanks for noticing the .htm extensions - these were two non-catalog pages which I had hard-coded on the footer bar, and I hadn't even tested those links!

Network Settings:

HTTP Proxy: direct

FTP Proxy: direct

FTP Server: ftp.globaholic.com
User: globaholic
Password: ******
Path to the CGI-BIN Directory:
/cgi-bin/
Path from the CGI-BIN Directory to the Catalog Directory:
/httpdocs/acatalog/

Catalog URL: http://www.globaholic.com/acatalog/

Codebase: ./

CGI-BIN URL: http://www.globaholic.com/cgi-bin/
Perl Location: /usr/bin/perl
CGI Script Extension: .pl
Path from the CGI-BIN Directory to the Catalog Directory (as viewed from the CGI Script):
../httpdocs/acatalog/
CGI Script ID: 1

[wfl]

"Use relative CGI-BIN URLs in Catalog Pages" probably doesn't need to be ticked in your case.

Did your ISP tell you to use /httpdocs?

If not that may be where your problem is.

On many unix boxes everything is relative to the site root whereas on Windows it is relative to the account root and you have to confirm the http folder.

Also have you tried leaving "Path from CGI...." blank or using just ./.... not ../....

[jonwilliams]

The host told me that /httpdocs was the root, and I think this was picked up by the network settings wizard anyway, but I will check. I will try your other suggestions too (will have to be this evening) and see if anything changes.

Thanks for your help

Jon

[jonwilliams]

OK.....

/cgi-bin/ and /httpdocs/ are directories off the root. /httpdocs/ is where I was told to put uploaded files, and /acatalog/ is a suddirectory of that. I tried to create an /acatalog/ directory off the root rather than as a subdirectory of /httpdocs/ but it won't let me do that.

Is the cgi-bin URL of http://www.globaholic.com/cgi-bin/ correct given the above?

I tried Alistair's suggestion of leaving "Path from CGI...." blank but that doesn't seem to have made any difference.

The wizard wouldn't let me put ./ instead of ../

Any ideas?

Thanks
Jon

[wfl]

Well Jon

It works now 20:46

There is a syntax error somewhere at the top of each page in line 2

[harlequin]

my word !

i wish i had saw this post a lot earlier...it's the windows lover here and if ANY of you require high class windows hosting i can set you up with test accounts (usually, i have over 20 spare with full SSL's ready to go)

thanks to gary for mentioning on the first page of this post that we have a correctly configured windows setup...

also i agree wholeheartedly with the above comments that windows runs actinic very well when configured correctly.

im not slinging any mud here as i havent had time to read through this post thoroughly and i can only speak in my own experience but generally the only time we have had issues with speed is when our hosting providers servers were too busy/incapable of handling the sheer amount of traffic our sites generated. (a nice note for actinic here is that most actinic sites just keep getting busier, not least because of their good handling of the search engines with cleanish html code and nice text nav links etc)

we now (after LOTS of tears, grief, wasted time, unfulfilled promises, and downright lies!) co-locate and maintain our own enterprise class servers with one of the most expensive bandwidth providers in the uk, but boy are they worth it... The truth is this, they make good money from their bandwidth so they go all out to make sure i can use as much of it as my greedy little sites want.

i think there is a definate point i am making for choosing companies nowadays to host / provide services that are MAKING them money, the old 'unlimited bandwidth', 'unlimited sites' etc etc unlimited everyting for £10 per month isnt realistic, companies doing that need to put many times more sites on their servers to just break even....we (and a whole breed of new companies) on the other hand have costed our hosting / services to ensure we make some money on them without having to put too many competing sites on one server.

i know this is a shameless plug for my own company, but, heres the issue, i LIKE windows for many reasons....and i have had to PERSONALLY delve into all the issues here, im not just relying on third party information to speak.

I did actually thrown down a challenge to any *nix host (in fun) to put the same test website up on their servers and mine, and get them tested for speed etc anytime of the day, no-one got back to me about it, chicken unix lovers.... pah!

I would genuinely be delighted to find a Unix/Linux host that could prove their servers were faster than my windows ones, it would spur me on to optimising my servers more and could be a positive thing for all concerned (and finally disprove this nonsense that *nix handles actinic better !)

However until someone accepts the challenge i respectfully submit that until PROVEN and or at least I am challenged, that Harlequin Domains are the fastest actinic host in the game, and its all thanks to Billy Gates on his luvverly windows server software.

hah

Steve Quinn
Harlequin Domains
www.harlequindomains.com
0800 0832077
Specialist Design, Hosting and Marketing for Actinic Software

PPS. IMPORTANT

as ever, i have read through now and have one more hugely important issue for you all to consider whilst you are thinking about hosting.

If the search engines, google in particular are of interest to you then you should know and be careful about where you are hosting your website geographically.

Google has recently moved to a model whereby if your website is hosted outside of the uk, it will not get listed in google.co.uk

i will post up some more info and links about this, but its real.
Already, we have a client who is stuck hosting in the states and he has now dropped completely from google.co.uk....

we did warn him of this two months ago but he is the only one who refused to do anything about it, maybe he doesnt bother with the engines so much....but its something you all need to consider as i noticed 1 and 1 being mentioned before as a good host which they are, just if you host with them you will not get onto google.co.uk because their datacentres are outside of the uk..

i may be completely wrong about 1 and 1, but the message is, if you want to appear on googles uk search engine, then host your site in the uk

I WAS just going to say that google are blocking all unix hosted websites but even im not that cheeky / provocative
steve

[Sly9er]

Wow Man!

I guess we all know that harlequin loves window's servers now.
To bad about that latest virus that attacked several windows
servers, of which one company was the ever popular BMW.

Why is it that every time a new virus is made public, it seems
to be attacking windows servers?

I guess if your not worried about security, or hackers that hate
Bill Gates, you should go with windows, ( notice that I never
capitalize "windows". Hee hee ). But for myself, I prefer to
have a secure website that hackers have not been able to
penetrait for the last 3 years. I also prefer to keep my business
out of a fight between all the hackers in the world and Bill Gates.

Bill never did anything to me personally, but if he attracts trouble,
I would rather not be a part of it.

[harlequin]

aha life in a unix lover

hi there, i agree with what you are saying, well, actually i dont...

I guess if your not worried about security,

the overwhelming majority of windows virus's that are released are capable of executing payload only because the admin of the machine hasnt kept up to date with freely available patches. Dont get me wrong, i am not inviting every hacker to have a go...that wouldnt be good..but i am pointing out that if you actually remove all problems that are created by people not patching windows machines, then you are left with actually very few....and even less that are actually ever exploited.

But for myself, I prefer to
have a secure website that hackers have not been able to
penetrait for the last 3 years.

I know plenty of webhosts who had untold trouble last week with the sendmail virus/vulnerability on linux servers..DOS attacks anyone? my mate who works for a linux host spent almost a week deleting mail from his spools caused by this virus..which simply used an exploit from a widely used script..AND brought down an entire data centre for a day....thanks guys, yes we suffered because of your unpatched linux machines....but no-one makes a big fuss about that....

the thing with billy gates is, (not unreasonably) everyone hates him and publicises his problems, everyone (reasonably) loves the idea and concepts behind open source software so therefore plays down the associated problems.

I also prefer to keep my business
out of a fight between all the hackers in the world and Bill Gates.

i have commented about this before in a long chat with gary hay in the v4 forum, http://community.actinic.com/showthr...&threadid=2330 and in a nutshell, i would rather keep my business out of an intelectual property dispute between SCO and the linux community.

in short (my opinion) is that when all the screaming and pontificating is over, that IBM did indeed nick some code they shouldnt have, and that is indeed the code that helped Linux make the critical leap to becoming a multi processor capable and therefore a contender in the webserver stakes.

IBM's repeated mantra, and that of well heeled know it alls is that SCO's case is rubbish and should be thrown out...bit difficult that then when IBM had to come out and admit that SCO DID indeed have the rights to this, signed for by IBM;s chief exec...pah..the handbags are swinging....

everyone seems to be really down on SCO for taking the line of trying to re-negotiate licences for linux, but let me ask you this, what makes them different to you and me, after all, if IBM negligently allowed or even worse instructed their engineers to use code they know they shouldnt have, arent they plain and simple theives? 'IBM wouldn't do that, would they?' Nah, suppose you are right, big corporates dont steal each others secrets and work in a dishonest manner now do they? Come on.

Should we all really rally to IBM's defence because they have the special 'shield of open-source'? in their armoury...no, if they are proven thieves, they are proven thieves....if not, then you linux guys can breathe safe until the next company finds out that THEIR code has been lifted and 'used' in linux...

It is a curious situation and not one i wholly understand at best but in the event its proven that ibm misappropriated proprietary code and trade secrets then somehow in american law, the people who continue to use ibm's software, once warned of this infringement become liable themselves....nervous? you should be..the implications for the end user such as yourself is fully paid for and licenced linux driving your costs up...who knows, microsoft may even become known as the bargain software if linux gets too expensive...

my personal second problem with linux/open source is that, ANYONE (and that includes criminals) can contribute ANY code to the open source movement...therefore making it insecure by definition (just not as exploited and hated as windows)

AH BUT i hear you cry, 'all the major linux vendors have thousands, well, hundreds of coders working on their o/systems' and that is true...

last time i checked redhat server edition came in at around £700 plus vat and Windows server around £400...errrr..i thought it was cheaper..

AH BUT you paw at me, 'At least when i have installed my shiny linux 'webserver' edition software, all the software i put on afterwards is free!' and hoorah again you are/can be correct..BUT i paw back, isnt all that free open software subject to my concerns about anyone being able to contribute it? And doesnt it therefore make a mockery of Commercial Linux verndors attempts to secure their o/s

RIGHT you little upstart you say ' we bought a secure distro of linux, and we use paid for (for 'paid for' read 'accountable') commercial ftp, smtp, email software etc....but i counter with, 'then this all seems a little expensive and not really different to windows at all...' in fact, is it really cheaper to go linux...

you punch my nose and the lights go out....

I awake with one question still burning on my mind, IF you can answer the questions i pose, AND linux doesnt significantly cost more to run, then IS it actually faster than Windows like for like and if so, where can i get one?

i enjoy your comments because if i am misinformed, where else can i learn my errors...please honestly dont think i am being flippant or nastily sarcastic about the issues here, or that i am a snotty little sod, i must admit i rely on the actinic forums to provide respite from the linux loving luvvies who bombard me with rubbish every time i post a windows question elsewhere, and also commercially i am sticking up for the platform of choice for my company...

PLEASE NOTE: if you ever dare say ANYTHING about Actinic, i will come and punch YOUR nose because i love Actinic far, far more than microsoft...

errr...better get on and build some sites now...oooppsss...

legal note: the above does not constitute a real and physical threat of violence, more was a reference to the imagined scenario mentioned above that where you, the reader, punched my nose...hahahahh

[harlequin]

one last thing (promise)

see alastairs post above where he references http://community.actinic.com/showthr...=8603#post8603 AND bearing in mind you are still having trouble after your 'egged on' move to unix, i suggest again that unix isnt a bed of roses some people would have you believe, if you want i can trawl the forums and come up with hundreds more problems you people have with linux/unix servers everyday, almost as many as windows...unix is defintately not the god of everything and shouldnt be blindly followed..

In future, to avoid rash decisions based on misinformation, if anyone who runs an actinic website on a windows server, (brothers!) who needs a quick test account to upload to offsite of their normal server just give me a quick call..ill let you use one in an emergency although probably only for a day or two, this can usually tell if its just your existing hosts setup that is causing problems or if it replicates itself on our server then you may indeed have a problem with windows or actinic and we can all go windows bashing together...

but john, something that confuses me about your comments above is that i just noticed you are offering windows hosting, why do you offer it ?

I guess if your not worried about security, or hackers that hate Bill Gates, you should go with windows, . But for myself, I prefer to have a secure website that hackers have not been able to penetrait for the last 3 years. I also prefer to keep my business out of a fight between all the hackers in the world and Bill Gates.

It seems strange that you offer windows hosting? Surely you dont sell something you truly believe to be insecure and must be causing you lots of extra maintainence to stem the flood of attacks and deal with the mopping up after attacks coming at the win servers you have?



Steve Quinn
Harlequin Domains
www.harlequindomains.com
0800 0832077
direct 01524 69466
Specialists in the Hosting, Design, Customisation, Search Engine Optimisation and Marketing of Actinic websites....thats all we do..

[Sly9er]

I'm threw

Simply because I don't have the time to write out replies as
long and rambling as harlequin has put out.

I give up H.

All I'll add is that I have worked extensively on both Unix
and windows platforms. And have found Unix to be more
flexible in the scripting world. Although I do love to work
with ASP.

Bye for now H

[harlequin]

apologies for the long posts but i touch type and its a curse sometimes.

i would have hoped that you thought my comments were more thought provoking or at least worthy of response than simply rambling and patently not worth addressing.

hey, on your preferences, each to his own, im just trying to stimulate open minded, balanced, factual discussion....i sincerely hope i havent spoiled the party.

but the guy who started this post was simply urged to swap hosting and had to relearn php (not a bad thing at all) whereas he may well have simply had to change to another windows host, not wholescale go down another untested route for himself.

i notice, with no happiness that his site is still not working at all...

was this the easy life on a unix server...forgive me for asking.

as you point out, we are all pushed for time......and his troubles started a month ago...

john @ globaholic, if you are still struggling we can help out even temporarily whilst you find another host, i hate to see a site down and i know its frustrating for you.

we simply do not accept problems such as you are having by the looks of things..

steve

[Sly9er]

Ditto jonwilliams

The intitial suggestions I gave you probably won't have
anything to do with your java problems.

But it's probably good that your seeing these errors now.

You may not have seen them before, but maybe on your
machine(s) only.

Your customers might have been seeing them on their PC's
the whole time, if your site was live.

I am actually quite busy, but if you give me some specific
issues you are having, I will take a look for you.

Lord knows I have been through the learning curve with
Unix (and windows.... Harlequin. ha ha ha!!! )

So let me know if I can be of any assistance.

PS.
Harlequin,
It's good to have someone to shoot the breeze with.
Please don't be offended by anything I have said. And
don't stop being yourself either. It's actually quite the
trip to read your posts.

[wfl]

Can we get back to the subject now?