|
Home > Archive > Microsoft Content Management Server > September 2006 > Root Channel containers:
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Root Channel containers:
|
|
| charftong@yahoo.com 2006-09-26, 7:23 pm |
| In the MCMS FAQ, there is a section that states the following:
"Root Channel containers:
Limit the number of containers under the root node. (For
example, channels should not have more than 10 to 15
immediate children containers.) "
My question is, where does this really apply. I actually have one
instance of MCMS with three sites, so my top-level channels are as
follows:
site1
site2
site3
Then beneath "site1" I have over 15 channels(one for each culture like
en-us, de-de). Is this violating the suggested limit or am I ok
because I have my top-level site of "site1"?
| |
| Stefan [MSFT] 2006-09-27, 1:19 pm |
| Hi,
this is only to let MCMS be a good neighbor to non-MCMS content on the same
website.
The reason is that for all incoming requests URLs are checked to see if the
item is a MCMS managed item.
For MCMS managed items this check is done quickly as the item is most likely
in the MCMS memory cache.
But for items not managed by MCMS the URL is not in the memory cache and
MCMS checks in the database if the item is managed or not. And this method
compares the URL against all root channels.
The more root channels you have the longer this will take.
If you don't have much non-MCMS content on the same site you can ignore this
limit and the usual 200-300 items limit will apply.
Cheers,
Stefan
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
<charftong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159304320.370108.264200@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> In the MCMS FAQ, there is a section that states the following:
>
> "Root Channel containers:
> Limit the number of containers under the root node. (For
> example, channels should not have more than 10 to 15
> immediate children containers.) "
>
> My question is, where does this really apply. I actually have one
> instance of MCMS with three sites, so my top-level channels are as
> follows:
> site1
> site2
> site3
>
> Then beneath "site1" I have over 15 channels(one for each culture like
> en-us, de-de). Is this violating the suggested limit or am I ok
> because I have my top-level site of "site1"?
>
| |
| charftong@yahoo.com 2006-09-27, 1:19 pm |
| Stefan, thanks alot for your quick response. We are big fans of
everything you have done in regards to spreading the MCMS word. We
even have multiple copies of your two books(Building Websites with MCMS
and Advanced MCMS) lying around the office.
Anyway, I think I need to clarify that the three sites in CMS are
actually all CMS sites. So site1, site2 and site 3 are actually 3
seperate CMS sites mapped to host-headers.
The site with performance problems is site1(http://site1) which has 15+
channels directly underneath it for all of our regions.
I am just not sure if this violates the 10 to 15 immediate children
containers or not And I would really like to rule this out as being a
possible reason for bad peformance on the CMS sites.
I hope I explained this right.
| |
| Stefan [MSFT] 2006-09-27, 7:30 pm |
| Hi,
again: this rule is not for performance problems with MCMS - but to avoid
performance problems with non-MCMS content.
If the problem affects MCMS content it cannot be the 15 item limit.
Cheers,
Stefan
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
<charftong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159380975.380824.106290@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Stefan, thanks alot for your quick response. We are big fans of
> everything you have done in regards to spreading the MCMS word. We
> even have multiple copies of your two books(Building Websites with MCMS
> and Advanced MCMS) lying around the office.
>
> Anyway, I think I need to clarify that the three sites in CMS are
> actually all CMS sites. So site1, site2 and site 3 are actually 3
> seperate CMS sites mapped to host-headers.
>
> The site with performance problems is site1(http://site1) which has 15+
> channels directly underneath it for all of our regions.
>
> I am just not sure if this violates the 10 to 15 immediate children
> containers or not And I would really like to rule this out as being a
> possible reason for bad peformance on the CMS sites.
>
> I hope I explained this right.
>
|
|
|
|
|