Talking High traffic website with PHP CMS vs Static Website?

Talking High traffic website with PHP CMS vs Static Website?
Hello people, so recently I found very usefull (at least for me) Static CMS Generator (Publii), and since my budget is not that high, I tought it's a great tool to create static website with all my projects instead of PHP CMS website.

++++++++++++++
list of top cheapest host http://Listfreetop.pw

Top 200 best traffic exchange sites http://Listfreetop.pw/surf

free link exchange sites list http://Listfreetop.pw/links
list of top ptc sites
list of top ptp sites
Listfreetop.pw
Listfreetop.pw
+++++++++++++++
I know that HTML is a lot of faster and better to use when at least speed is the case, but I still have few questions for you guys.
Since I think that shared hosting package will be great to start with (since my website will be pure HTML & CSS) I want to know how much is bigger difference when bandwidth and server load is the case when using PHP CMS (WordPress for example) and Static Website.
In both cases all images and files would be hosted on the third party website.
We will calculate this with 500 Daily users, 200+ pageviews, and avarage page size of 40 KB.
With all that said, how much is better to use Static Website instead of PHP CMS? (I need numbers)
Any HTML based website should load faster than an WordPress based one, at least in theory. the reason is that the WP might use various plugins and software apps. However, I would not suggest anyone to use a static HTML website if they would need to update i on a regular basis. There is no reason going back in time to the 90s of the last century when there were no standards-based Open source CMS on the market.
Host Color ★ Cloud, Dedicated Hosting & Colocation & Europe Infrastructure Hosting
Data centers ★★ in the U.S. & Europe
Network ★ AS46873 ★★ Level 3, Cogent, Hurricane Electric, Vocus & more
Static websites, at least the one I've tested and compared (all on shared and reseller hosting accounts) are lightning fast compared to CMS ones (using database) - even when all the caching and optimizations are done properly.

However, like said above: if a website is to be updated regularly, especially if new pages are to be added and linked on a regular basis (editing contents of an existing html page is less inconvenient), then CMS is the "least bad" solution IMO.
Mostly harmless?
Well, I don't add content regulary, since I am adding only modifications, maps, etc. for certian games, and I don't know if you guys know what is publi, but it works like wordpress, only on desktop and when you are finished editing or adding new content, you just click "Sync with... (FTP, Amazon AWS, etc.)" and all content is updated on your website within few minutes (Doesn't metter if y ou changed links, delete posts, etc.)
But I still need answer on my question, how much will static website save me bandwidth and CPU usage.
Static HTML is easy to cache. While I'm not sure on how many resources are saved exactly, here are test results (using GTmetrix) for two test websites.

First one is using WordPress, optimized, on a more powerful (faster) hosting account and the tested page has practically no images, very little text and no other "heavy content".

The second one has more text, a few pictures and is made with pure, static HTML. The hosting account is a lot slower (when comparing same sites, especially WordPress, it doubles page load times).
Wordpress results:
Fully Loaded Time
2.0s
Total Page Size
479KB
Requests
17
HTML results:
Fully Loaded Time
336ms
Total Page Size
243KB
Requests
11
Mostly harmless?
But I still need answer on my question, how much will static website save me bandwidth and CPU usage.
You won't save anything in terms of bandwidth, as the same HTML content will be delivered to the browser regardless if it is a WordPress site or a static site. In cases, where a WordPress theme uses unnecessary scripts and your static site doesn't, you will save the bandwidth equivalent to the size of those scripts.
For CPU, I don't have an exact number. I read about it decades ago, forgot where I read about it and never wanted to dig it again, but roughly, you should see about 90% decrease in CPU usage for high traffic sites.
Hello people, so recently I found very usefull (at least for me) Static CMS Generator (Publii), and since my budget is not that high, I tought it's a great tool to create static website with all my projects instead of PHP CMS website.
How is publii for directly inserting your own HTML into a page? Does it include a form builder? If not, can you at least code your own form and insert it?
In short, HTML is much lighter compared to CMS type website like WordPress (MySQL/PHP required).

HTML should always load faster and use fewer resources and the server will be able to serve many more requests at the same time compared to a dynamic site like WordPress.

Most people usually use CMS like WordPress when they need to update content or create a lot of pages on a daily basis. Otherwise, HTML will be better.
In short, HTML is much lighter compared to CMS type website like WordPress (MySQL/PHP required).

HTML should always load faster and use fewer resources and the server will be able to serve many more requests at the same time compared to a dynamic site like WordPress.

Most people usually use CMS like WordPress when they need to update content or create a lot of pages on a daily basis. Otherwise, HTML will be better.
A static website is always going to be faster, it's just simple physics.
There's no processing (or very little) going on. The text that is in the HTML file is the text that is sent to the browser.

When you start coding with any server-side programming language (like PHP) that means the processor has to interpret that code and spit out HTML. The server-side programming language becomes a middle man.

Now granted, as other have said, if you are updating your website constantly then offloading this on a server-side programming language (like a PHP CMS script) may make things easier. It's still going to be slower than a static website. But... if it takes you 10 minutes to edit the HTML code directly in a static page versus 30 seconds for the PHP CMS, then if the static website loads in 3 seconds and the PHP CMS loads in 5 seconds... which is more valuable to you? The 2 seconds spent that your visitors have to wait for the page to load? Or the 9mins 30secs that you spend updating the website?

The more plugins and the more code you run your website through, the longer it's going to take to load. Every plugin you have enabled in a WordPress site takes time for every hit in order for the plugin to ask "does this request need my assistance?" and if it does "what do I need to do with this request?" It's true that all of these questions are probably answered in terms of milliseconds in the computing world, but still they add up. That's why a WordPress site with 200 plugins is going to perform slowly.
What I'm curious about is how it scales. Correct me where I'm wrong:

CMS websites can still be cached to a degree. So there shouldn't be too much extra load with more visitors. Cached content would behave similarly like html site's?

HTML, of course, as static, can be cached 100% - though in that case, at least on server-side caching, it doesn't make much difference, does it? Only client side caching (browsers and proxies) should make a notable difference there, since server doesn't need to run any code, just "provide files".


Haven't had the chance to test a HTML site with lots of visitors and see how it performs on a same/similar server - compared with a CMS website and similar number of visitors.
For small visit number website, HTML is lightning fast compared to "the same thing" made using a CMS (WordPress, with few plugins and caching that is, didn't try other CMS-s).

So for websites that aren't updated more than once a year (if then) and no "great changes" planed, I prefer HTML.
Mostly harmless?
A static website is always going to perform better.

Now, "better" in this instance is in terms of computing terms. Which might only be 5ms in real world time, which won't really be noticeable by anyone. But in terms of computing, not spending 5ms processing something frees up that 5ms to process something else.

safesearchtraffic.biz
specialerotic.com
t tess domains
make money not excuses
i make money like so what
worldhits.info
make money moves gif
d hostel bangkok tripadvisor
hosting the academy awards
at&t domain 2.0


So in this instance, "better" can be in the eye of the beholder. Static is always going to perform better, but if that "better" results in more physical work for you then it becomes a question of how much physical work you can hold up against before that "better" starts to break down.

I can balance a check book without a computer, money program, or calculator. It might take me an hour to do it all by hand. If a use a money program or calculator that same job might take me 2 minutes. But in order to use the money program, I have to buy a computer and the money program and/or a calculator.

Which is more valuable to me? The 58 minutes of my life I'd save if I had a computer/calculator to do this work? Or the money it would cost me to buy the computer/calculator? (This allusion would be better if calculators were still expensive and not everybody had a computer or smartphone)

The same is true with CMS vs static pages. There's no question that a CMS allows you to edit your website faster than through static pages. Keep in mind with static pages, if you are dealing with a lot of posts (like blog posts), then you will have to deal with pagination manually - something a CMS does with relative ease. But the cost of that easiness is going to be poorer performance. But noticeable poorer performance? That depends on who you ask.
I took a fast look at their website and you can add easily content, edit it, seo options etc

It's an static cms
Publii looks interesting.

I took a fast look at their website and you can add easily content, edit it, seo options etc

It's an static cms
Looked into it. Multilingual website support is planned for this year. If that is implemented, I'd consider it a serious alternative for WordPress.
The biggest advantage of WordPress is the ease of updating sitemaps, tags, adding new content, altering the existing (both content and structure).

Publii looks like it can do that almost as well, but without relying on the database - which sounds promising (faster, more stable, if the CMS is written properly).
In its current stage, however, adding page versions in other language(s) is a hassle - having to be done manually. Which is a deal breaker for me.
Mostly harmless?
Publii looks interesting.
I downloaded https://mobirise.com/ once but haven't really looked at it. Hows that compared to Pubii?
The way I have read this thread described it's almost like reading a non-issue in this day of age; while yes - a static website, given the same set of system specifications and settings, will load faster or at least equally as fast unless that static website does make requests to other static content which load in slower than a dynamic CMS counterpart - unless you're on a very limited host that hasn't upgraded infrastructure since 2001 this should not even play a concern.

Assuming the dynamic site is well maintained, the dynamic site is also going to leverage the power of caching among many other features for virtually all of its static content and even these days dynamic content have entered this realm since there are dynamic content that for better or worse can be cached in some fragmentation of pre-loaded well before you ever arrived.

Unless it's a temporary landing page, a maintenance page, or an error page, the people of 2019 expect a dynamically usable site even if it's a dynamic wrapper around static content. Otherwise they class that page into "archaic" and never visit it again with any realm of legitimacy.
The way I have read this thread described it's almost like reading a non-issue in this day of age; while yes - a static website, given the same set of system specifications and settings, will load faster or at least equally as fast unless that static website does make requests to other static content which load in slower than a dynamic CMS counterpart - unless you're on a very limited host that hasn't upgraded infrastructure since 2001 this should not even play a concern.

Assuming the dynamic site is well maintained, the dynamic site is also going to leverage the power of caching among many other features for virtually all of its static content and even these days dynamic content have entered this realm since there are dynamic content that for better or worse can be cached in some fragmentation of pre-loaded well before you ever arrived.

Unless it's a temporary landing page, a maintenance page, or an error page, the people of 2019 expect a dynamically usable site even if it's a dynamic wrapper around static content. Otherwise they class that page into "archaic" and never visit it again with any realm of legitimacy.
Static page can be made to look good and load with a fraction of time compared to a dynamic one.

Cheap shared hosting account has a static page load in 300 ms or so, while a well optimized WordPress site (with Litespeed and all the other optimization bells and whistles) can’t load in much under one second even on a better/faster shared hosting account.

Static puts less load on a server, so you can go with worse/cheaper hosting resources.
Mostly harmless?
I downloaded https://mobirise.com/ once but haven't really looked at it. Hows that compared to Pubii?
I haven't used Publii nor I was aware of mobirise.

When I first read the OP, I took a look at the Publii website and thought it's interesting but at least for now, I've lost interest

For now when I'd need an small html site I'll use the notepad ++ or similar and when I'd need a cms I'll use wordpress

Also considering Ghost cms
I use Mobirise for some sites and it works well.

Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk
Static page can be made to look good and load with a fraction of time compared to a dynamic one.

Cheap shared hosting account has a static page load in 300 ms or so, while a well optimized WordPress site (with Litespeed and all the other optimization bells and whistles) can’t load in much under one second even on a better/faster shared hosting account.

Static puts less load on a server, so you can go with worse/cheaper hosting resources.
Well, I haven't used "Shared Hosting" in practically two decades so I am not the expert to go on trying to maximize what is so minimized because each and every plan is sold somewhere from $1.99 - $9.99/mo as a barrier to entry. Even Sharedspace charges more than that - albeit they do have a nice website builder to go with it but they also throw in a bunch of other value added items.
In either case, https://mobirise.com/blocks/ looks like something I would be interested in using just for WiFi Hotspot deployments after the flow for signing in were complete. The other one mentioned here, Publii couldn't hold my attention for 30 seconds before I closed the page as it didn't seem like they were offering anything special (and 30 seconds is the pretty average pitch time).
That's what I thought, too. It looks impressive. But I already have my own scripts and couldn't yet get my hands on it to play with.
Well, I haven't used "Shared Hosting" in practically two decades so I am not the expert to go on trying to maximize what is so minimized
I see no point in requesting more resources than is needed (optimal). Static HTML has its merits. Low resource load is one of them. Another is no worries about updates in order to keep a website secure and working well. For websites that hardly ever change, it is a perfect candidate. "Set and forget".
Mostly harmless?
You are all saying that you will need 10 minutes in static website to add content, and that is exactly what I am telling you that is nkt true.
That's why I asked this question about speed, etc.
In publii (like in wordpress) you click "Add new post", you write contect and click "Sync" and that's iit. Post is uploaded to your website in html form.