A General Script Error Occurred!?

[pinbrook]

Yep,

I feel these guys are running rings around you.....there are better hosts out there who won't fobb you off with such excuses

[andyk]

check out actinic's hosting partners page i'm sure you'll find someone there that will be a reliable host!

[triggerhippie]

Ok ok, have to say though they have been excellent on all counts and performance has been 100% - If what was said is true, hten I can understand it.

I have also spoken to someone in Actinic who knos them and has apparently spoken a few times with them to try and tackle this issue:

Donhost!

Please chaps be kind as they have been reasonable on all other counts and their price is very good for 1year reseller UNIX and all that goes with - approx £469.99.

Support is always there and ready to help ....it's just in this case that I am left scratching my head in disbelief ...

Let me know your thoughts

[pinbrook_nick]

I’ve just done some testing on V4, 5 and 6. I monitored the memory usage of the perl process while performing purchase actions. I took several readings, and here are the averages: (all figures in MB [Megabytes]).

Add to cart:
V4: 7.3
V5: 7.7
V6: 8.0 (10% increase from V4; 4% increase from V5)

Checkout button:
V4: 9.3
V5: 9.7
V6: 12.0 (29% increase from V4; 24% increase from V5)

Finish button on credit card encrypt:
V4: 9.5
V5: 11.9
V6: 13.0 (37% increase from V4; 9% increase from V5)


I took these readings using perl on my PC. Therefore the memory usage would probably be less on a web server – being more efficient. I may try this experiment some time on our own web servers - if I do, I’ll post the results.

The figures are a little rough, but should give an idea of the amount of increase in memory demand over the versions.

In my opinion, an increase from 9.5 to 13MB is not that significant. A 256MB stick of ECC memory costs about £50 right now. Advances in code require advances in hardware performance. Look at Windows today – cleaner, more user-friendly features and graphic rich, but at a cost of requiring more powerful PC’s. Fortunately web servers are more efficient, and require less frequent upgrading. I have been using V6 on our web server with any apparent performance related problems so far.

[zmagyar]

Nick,

Thanks a lot for posting these figures. It is good to see an independent performance review. :-)

However I must mention there are several infulencing factors. E.g.
- installed apache modules
- installed perl modules (MD5, ActEncrypt1024)
- Catalog configuration (shipping, tax, etc settings)
- the size of your site (number of products, price schedules, etc)
In other words these figures can either be better or worst (some sites require 16MB to complete the checkout). But the tendency can perfectly be seen. I believe this memory requirement increase is understandable comparing the features of different versions.

On the other hand I can understand the ISP point of view as operating shared servers requires lots of trade off. Depending on their performance/security standard they might or might not want to do this change for you. It is their choice as you have the choice to find the suitable ISP which fits for your needs.

By the way I believe most of the confusion (especially from ISP point of view) is down to the interpretation of the word "script". They expect some tiny code which provides some dynamic content for the web pages. But believe me, a shopping cart application (especially as complex as Catalog is) can not fit in this size.

Anyway as I already mentioned we are taking these isses serious and investigating our scripts from this point of view. I'm pretty sure significant improvements can not be achived in maintenance releases but we are considering some online performance improvement in the next major release.

Regards,

Zoltan Magyar
Actinic Software

[garyhay]

You must be getting some overtime bonus. 10.30 at night WOW

[zmagyar]

I have flexible working hours (as all the developers) which means that I'm supposed to work all day. BTW it is 00:12 here.

Zoltan

[pinbrook_nick]

Thanks for the comments Zoltan - some handy info.

The tests I ran were all on the same platform (my PC running a standard install of ActiveState Perl). I also used the demo store in each version of actinic, and purchased a simple, single product for consistency. Hopefully that meant reasonably even figures.

I agree that there may be confusion over the word "script" for web hosts. But on the flip side, any web host offering "Actinic compatible" hosting should take into consideration the performance demands of Actinic when pricing the hosting package. If the web host has costs for server hardware, then each hosting package should be priced to pay for the percentage load it puts on the hardware (and bandwidth).

If web hosts believe that newer versions of Actinic (and any other evolving products) are putting a greater load on their servers, then perhaps they could offer hosting packages with pricing to match the version of software. On a features point of view, Actinic V6 is significantly more advanced than V4, therefore maybe people ought to be prepared to pay more for it's running costs - just as they are prepared to pay for the upgrade license.

If you upgrade from Windows 98 to XP, you might have to accept the fact that a hardware upgrade may be neccessary too.


The way web hosting is charged is an evolving situation. The main factor used to be the amount of disk space you got with your package. That has disappeared somewhat with the advent of massive cheap hard disks. Bandwidth is currently a cost issue for a number of hosts, and premiums are charged on wieldy database sites, which put a load on the processor(s).


I am not suggesting for a minute that hosts should start charging more for V6 hosting - I don't see us doing so for now (I personally don't think it demands that much more).

What I am saying for a situation like this, where a client's needs change mid-way through their hosting year is this:

A reasonable host who feels the client's needs have exceeded the specifications of their current package, could offer a more advanced package with higher specifications. If that is not in their power, then it may be time to look for another host. (If one of our clients exceeds the bandwidth limit of their package, we charge them extra that month. If it goes on month after month, we re-evaluate the package at the end of the year).

[zmagyar]

Originally posted by pinbrook_nick
The tests I ran were all on the same platform (my PC running a standard install of ActiveState Perl). I also used the demo store in each version of actinic, and purchased a simple, single product for consistency. Hopefully that meant reasonably even figures.

Thanks for the addition. Now it makes a good basis for comparision. I must say thank you again for doing and publishing this.

Originally posted by pinbrook_nick

I agree that there may be confusion over the word "script" for web hosts. But on the flip side, any web host offering "Actinic compatible" hosting should take into consideration the performance demands of Actinic when pricing the hosting package. If the web host has costs for server hardware, then each hosting package should be priced to pay for the percentage load it puts on the hardware (and bandwidth).

If the service is offered as "Actinic compatible" then I absolutely agree.

Zoltan
Actinic Software

[Ginnys Attic]

I must also mention that the ISP can optimise the webserver for Actinic (as lot of them do). Not only the memory requirement can be decreased in this way but the online performance can be improved (significantly if you use Business).
If your ISP is willing to consult about this then you can suggest the followings:
- Install mod_perl (if not installed so far) - this provides high performance keeping the perl interpreter in the server's memory.
- Install Digest-MD5 perl package - Catalog uses this encryption frequently and uses our own (slow) perl version if the binary one is not present.
- Install the binary version of our 1024 bit encryption library which makes the order recording faster.

Knowledge Base Article Ref: CD185 may provide more info about this.

Hi, I was unable to find the Knowledge Base Article Ref: CD185 (Muppet i know no doubt) i was just wondering where i or my host could get the binary version of the 1024 bit encryption library so it can be installed and if there was any further details and instructions on this so i could encourage my host to install it for us?

[NormanRouxel]

Welcone, Adrian

The previous reply on this thread was in 2003 so things may have changed a little since then.

Anyway the article referred to is http://knowledge.actinic.com/acatalo...ut.html#aCD185 but it doesn't really state more than you aleady know.

You may need to contact Actinic directly for info on that 1024 bit module.

[atulamigo]

Getting same issue again, A General Script Error Occoured

Hello Mate

I am new user to this Actinic shopping cart. One of our client is facing following problem

A General Script Error Occurred
Error: Error opening configuration file /home/sites/www.website.com/web/acatalog/prompt.fil. No such file or directoryPress the Browser back button and try again or contact the site owner.

One thing about site is, it was working fine when it was on old server. Its hosting company switched this site to their CPANEL. and things get down.

Any one can help me please? Its really urgent.

Looking Forward From your Side

Thanks.
Cheers!!!
Atul

[Duncan Rounding]

Check folder permissions and run a network test and check for errors.

What's the URL?

[Darren B]

im guessing the network settings need changing, post these here and also your host

[ews.tom]

If this is any help to anyone -

This error was appearing when clicking View Cart or Checkout and stumped me for a while -

Turned out it was me adding the links myself that did it; the urls had CartPageURL and CheckoutPageURL variables as the hrefs, which were just linking to the perl scripts.

Changing these to CartLinkText and OrderLinkText fixed the problem - thanks to the gent on the Actinic support line!