I am actively looking at the market of popular CMS. Somehow, the industry’s hosting is not very popular to track trends in the software that we as a host. Although recent still have a tendency toward expression of interest of colleagues in this issue. Such a historical primer for the emergence of this post was my report of the expert evaluation of some CMS in its application to mass hosting. Briefly, I also was told that the CMS heavy, usually inconvenient to use, that the opinion on their business performance by orders of magnitude higher than the dismal reality. There, I called for a dialogue between the developers and the exploiters CMS-host.
Two years passed. Something had changed. Something for the better, something worse. And the other day I said to myself curious in terms of operation and needs of the release of one of the domestic commercial CMS – UMI.CMS.
First, what caught my opinion, was the refusal of the use of ZendOptimizer test version of CMS. It would seem that such a small thing, but how much impact it has. First, it extends the range of a few web hosts, suitable for use. Secondly, ZendOptimizer will no longer be issued under FreeBSD, which is the leader of the hosting system “in Russia. UMI.CMS to be injected for the future:) Thirdly, it will be used and encoded versions of CMS, along with all sorts of “accelerators” only with their “glitches”, without imposing features ZendOptimizer. In particular, this will really test hosting with accelerators without any attempt to transfer there already purchased ready-made version of SMS. I understand that UMI just trying to take market share in all possible ways, including hilling hostings. But it’s good, because that is what is healthy competition in a market economy.
Second, what I sense only “interlaced”, is integration with 1C-accounting. According to the announcement, UMI slightly “bent” 1C-Bitrix in terms of integration with 1C. I specifically poguglil – like the truth. Particular attention should be paid to the keyword CommerceML. I think such an attack in the direction of senior competitor will surge “arms race” that the business is always useful to create a healthy atmosphere in the market.
I could not resist and put it on a busy server virtual hosting (specifically chose not fresh) new version UMI.CMS http://umicms.diphost.ru. It’s just a demo site from the same set of CMS. I specifically turned off in php.ini ZendOptimizer, to avoid marketing mistake.
Immediately I note remains unshakable thing – UMI.CMS remained picky about the disk subsystem. Any “corking” on the disc gives a direct reaction to the performance of CMS.
Noted for themselves the possibility of caching intermediate objects in the file cache. At least until I had perhaps only this, the hosting there is no memcached, or APC.
We, as in some domestic and some foreign hosts (eg webfaction), rigidly fixed number of processors on the apache user. Therefore, the classical test “Enterprise” is rather difficult to do in terms of outcome evaluations, and I’m too lazy. I turned caching intermediate objects in the disk generation of pages with products from 0.5 to 5 seconds. Is it much or too little? Pages with static cache can be considered almost static – about 0.01 seconds to generate. I believe that without a cache can not talk about the high loads, because it is all the talk in favor of the rich. Simply stated the fact that it has various shots.
Along with caching optimization is clearly evident by the number of static “junk”, which gives each site, and especially the CMS. Can you see yourself in the properties page in your browser, how much and what it connects. Nonsense, but “five old ladies – the ruble, the load on the operational part of markedly decreases.
Just recently, my colleagues and I discussed the existing wiki-engines. There was little dispute about the semantic load WYSIWYG-editor. I have argued that it still only gives the appearance that will look like the result, and therefore a special semantic load is that if you want to render inline-editing, which no one has almost none. Just gave the example of UMI.CMS, because they have it there, ie we edit what we see. The question arose about the list of changes. What was my surprise when I saw the new inline editor, click “change”, which still works – you can roll back the version change. There, of course, without describing the changes you need to guess the tea leaves, what and when you changed, but the mere fact.
I would also like to note the important, in my opinion, thing. Software in the history of the product tends to “stagnate”. This is the notorious backwards compatible Windows, and «UTF-8 experimental support» in the XXI century in Twiki, and many other examples. Very happy to see as a fairly featured CMS has changed and prototype.js to a more modern jquery. This is a very positive indicator of an image.
Here’s a fun release. We look forward to “retaliation” with bows in the direction of operation from competing with commercial UMI CMS