Publishing FP2000 Problems (FP 2000 (2000 SExt))

Topic

New Reply

We have instituted a 3 server FP web site (DEV TEST and PRODUCTION) to manage the content in a mostly static web site. To manage the content we currently create the pages in the dev site then import the files into the TEST site and then on approval publish them to production site. There is some use of web bots and other FP niceties but its not extensive. The content is rather large and managed under one site on each server.

size: 237 MB – 6678 Files in 718 Folders (this includes all the _vti dirs and files

We are having enormous problems publishing only changed pages. By this I mean that FP seems to loose track of what has changed between published versions. So much so that it can take hours over a local LAN connection to accomplish this task and we will have to respond to hundreds of prompts about newer files.

We have heard that large sites have these problems and that the 2002 extensions solve many of these issues. I also understand that large sites often create many subwebs which sounds like a viable option but also a huge undertaking considering the number of cross linked files etc. There also seems to be very little guidance on how to best implement subwebs.

I am hoping this post can turn into a discussion on the best options for large sites. I know there are folks out there with sites larger than mine (sorry I can’t give you a link its an intranet only site) that could provide input on their best practices.

Hope to hear from you

and thanks… HR

Reply | Quote

Replies

Hi
In this post 117370 I discussed a couple of reasons for subwebs. You mention “but also a huge undertaking considering the number of cross linked files etc”. I’d break it into subwebs one step at a time, monitoring any difficulties along the way. I’d also scan post 238794, I’m wondering if there is a problem with the files in your _vti_cnf folders updating properly. These files hold publishing info. A test might be to delete (or just move if you are nervous), those files in both the source and destination webs (do this with the website closed). Then reopen those webs and let FP regenerate the info, then try publishing again. (This can be a hassle, since there is a _vti_cnf folder for each directory.)
Another advantage to subwebs is the security you can apply, this allows you to have separate authors for different areas ie. human resources, operations, etc.

Hope this helps

Reply | Quote

Thanks for your reply….
In my scenario it would seem that the _vti_cnf would be a first step. I am concerned though that if they are deleted from both the production and the test sites that they will be out of sync if in fact any synchronization of the info contained in them occurs during publishing. Based on the other posts I would make the assumption that these files could be used as the mechanism to determine which files to update (based on either date time stamp or total content) do you know if this is true.

This leads to some other questions..
1 What happens if content is placed on the web NOT using FP and the publishing extensions. (I ask this cause I have some suspicions that short cuts get taken due to the time required to publish)

2. If sub webs are created in the directory structure of the main web is there contention over the _vti_cnf content.

3. Can subwebs be used in DEV and TEST environments but not in Production (current method of publishing is import from dev to test, publish from test to PROD) it would seem that the prod would have to mirror Test including the subwebs

4 In one of the posts you mentioned that security for subwebs could be different than the main web. Was that true of FP2000 server Ext or was that in reference to FP2002 SExt I believe it certainly would be easier to maintain in FP2002.

5 Has MS every posted or stated a best practice for the size of a FP managed website?

I have about 4 more but I’ll stop here for now

Thanks in advance for the time and energy you put into this post and all the others. I did search before hand but had difficulty, most threads are probably named as badly as this one

Thanks again
HR

Reply | Quote

Wew! This is going to be a long answer, so sit back.
“I would make the assumption that these files could be used as the mechanism to determine which files to update … “
Yes, my understanding is that these files do exactly that (among other things); if you look in one of this files, you’ll see information fields like: vti_timelastmodified, vti_timecreated,vti_lineageid, vti_nexttolasttimemodified, vti_syncwith, vti_cacheddtm, vti_filesize, and vti_cachedneedsrewrite. I’m sure I haven’t got them all, but it shows what is going on in the file. I’m not sure if you are talking about modifiying these files manually (my feeling is that would be dangerous and cumbersome). The obvious test would be to take a copy of the vit_cnf file before and after its’ page is published.
“What happens if content is placed on the web NOT using FP and the publishing extensions. (I ask this cause I have some suspicions that short cuts get taken due to the time required to publish)”
This question definitely caused a eureka moment over here. The short answer is “bad things“, but you know that already. Seriously, in my experience you have to commit to one method or the other for transferring website content. Mixing methods just causes problems for FP because those vti_cnf files are not updated properly. Another thing that seems to cause problems is changing the direction of publishing. In other words your content should flow through DEV — TEST– PRODUCTION consistently, not TEST–DEV–PRODUCTION, PRODUCTION–DEV, etc. I did this to myself when I was working with the FP betas and though I haven’t tried dropping that hammer on my foot again, I have no reason to believe it will hurt less now.
“If sub webs are created in the directory structure of the main web is there contention over the _vti_cnf content.”
No, the subwebs create their own _vti_content folders.
“Can subwebs be used in DEV and TEST environments but not in Production” .
Not unless you plan on redoing links once you place the info in PRODUCTION and you couldn’t publish from TEST to PRODUCTION.
“security for subwebs could be different than the main web. Was that true of FP2000 “
Yes it is true for 2000, that has been the case since the first incarnation of FP.
“Has MS every posted or stated a best practice for the size of a FP managed website”
I have an itch, that says I’ve seen something like that – but I can’t think of where. But remember it isn’t just FP or its’ server extensions that come into the equation here, it is also the server itself. You haven’t mentioned what server software you are using. But I’d look it up on the MS support site to see if there are limits there.
In the meantime, I have some MS knowledge base links that you might find useful:
Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 205234: How to Divide a Large Root Web into Smaller Subwebs
Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 301432: Create a Subweb and Add Permissions Using FrontPage 2000
Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 201803: Tuning Web Performance
Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 303255: Error Message Saving Changes to Web
Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 265134: FrontPage 2000 Server Extensions Service Release 1.1 (to be honest, I haven’t followed to see if there is a newer service release than this one.

Hope this is useful

Reply | Quote

Thanks for the great reply…

By now you may have your suspicions that I am not the ‘webmaster’ for this site and you would be right. I have been asked to to help get things straightened out. I helped set up the web server almost 3 years ago and it has been user maintained and managed ever since.

Thanks for the heads up on the publishing direction issue. I have successfully published backward, then foward again, with small sites (less than a 100 pages) where I was in full control and new that I was the only editor/publisher and might have tried it, but I have never attempted it with a site as large as this.

I am currently analyzing the layout of the web site to see how sub webs could best be used. The directories are currently at least SIX layers deep in some places and links in lower directories often refer back to items and images just off the root. I have seen posts regarding trouble with nested websites, hopefully they mean the same page/file being served up by more than one root (not subwebs). If the images live in the parent web will the subweb treat them like an external link? If yes then a lot of links could be broken until a fully qualified URL replaces the existing relative link. Any thoughts /experiences?

Just to further complicate matters, this web site is about to move to new 2000 servers (in a couple of weeks). My current inclination is to publish from the existing PRODUCTION site to a NEWTEST site. Make the NEWTEST site be what it needs to be (clean up any unwanted files, make sure all links work, and implement any subwebs if they are to be used) and then publish to the NEWPROD site from the NEWTEST. I have been reading about the FP 2002 / STS extensions (are they really different?) and how they have been re-archetected to perform better and be more stable. The current servers have FP2000 SExt and the new servers will probably have at least FP2002 if not STS. Any thoughts?

One last question, (for this post anyway ):

IF the site is designed as:

 
[ROOT 1] / DIR
         / DIR
         /[SUBWEB A] / DIR
         / DIR       / DIR
                     / DIR
                     / [SUBWEB B] / DIR
                                  / DIR
                                  / DIR
                                  / DIR

and ROOT 1 is published, does publishing stop at the SUBWEB A level and if SUBWEB A is published it starts there and stops at SUBWEB B?

You’ve put a lot of effort into this thread and I really appreciate it. Hopefully it will become one of those you “bookmark” for future reference. I promise I will keep you and the lounge updated on how this all goes, that is if there is any intrest on your part in hearing about it.

Thanks once again
HR

Reply | Quote

Well, now we can trade confessions – I haven’t worked with the FP server extensions for the last 6 months or so. So I really can’t give you the performance information on comparing 2000 vs 2002. Perhaps someone else reading this thread can chime in.
In the bigger sites I have worked with, they did not nest subwebs inside subwebs – in fact, recalling some old info from the FP 98 technical course, I believe you can not do that anyway. FP goes for a “wide and flat” directory structure. This allows FP to handle the publishing and security separately. If you publish the Root web, only the root web is transferred.
If your situation is like many others, you are probably wondering about standard images, and textual elements that are used across the entire web. You want to hold them in one location for easy updating and also to minimize the size of the overall website. You should be able to create relative links between webs.
This is a chance to look critically at the content of the website as well as its’ structure. Typically the standard content is kept in the root website to allow for greater security (don’t want people updating your graphics accidently). But I have seen scenarios where ASP and server side includes basically slap the standard elements on each page as it goes out the door. Nothing is handled by FP. A better place to post questions about those is the Web Design, Coding and Scripting board.

Cheers

Reply | Quote