Recommended structure for high traffic website [closed]_问答_开发者

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.

Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.

Closed 6 years ago.

Improve this question

I'm rewriting a big website, that needs very solid architecture, here are my few questions, and pardon me for mixing apples and oranges and probably kiwi too:) I did a lot of research and ended up totally confused.

Main question: Which approach would you take in building a big website expected to grow in every way?

Single entry point, pages data in the database, pulled by associating GET variabl开发者_运维问答e with database entry (?pageid=whatever)
Single entry point, pages data in separate files, included based on GET variable (?pageid=whatever would include whatever.php)
MVC (Alright guys, I'm all for it, but can't grasp the concept besides checking all tutorials and frameworks out there, do they store "view" in database? Seems to me from examples that if you have 1000 pages of same kind they can be shaped by 1 model, but I'll still need to have 1000 "views" files?)
PAC - this sounds even more logical to me, but didn't find much resources - if this is a good way to go, can you recommend any books or links?
DAL/DAO/DDD - i learned about these terms by diligently reading through stack overflow before posting question. Not sure if it belongs to this list
Sit down and create my own architecture (likely to do if nobody enlightens me here:)
Something not mentioned...

Thanks.

Scalability/availability (iow. high-traffic) for websites is best addressed by none of the items you mention. Especially points 1 and 2; storing the page definitions in a database is an absolute no-no. MVC and other similar patterns are more for code clarity and maintenance, not for scalability.

An important piece of missing information is what kind of concurrent hits/sec are you expecting? Sometimes, people who haven't built high-traffic websites are surprised at the hit rates that actually constitute a "scalability nightmare".

There are books on how to design scalable architectures, so an SO post will not be able to the topic justice, but some very top-level concepts, in no particular order, are:

Scalability is best handled first by looking at hardware-based solutions. A beefy server with an array of SSD disks can go a long way.
Make static anything that can be static. Serve as much as you can from the web server, not the DB. For example, a lot of pages on websites dynamically generate data lists out of databases from data stores that very rarely or never really change.
Cache output that changes infrequently, and tune the cache refresh.
Build dynamic pages to be stateless or asynchronous. Look into CQRS and Event Sourcing for patterns that favor/facilitate scaling.
Tune your queries. The DB is usually the big bottleneck since it is a shared resource. Lots of web app builders use ORMs that create poor queries.
Tune your database engine. Backups, replication, sweeping, logging, all of these require just a little bit of resource from your engine. Tuning it can lead to a faster DB that buys you time from a scale-out.
Reduce the number of HTTP requests from clients. Each HTTP connect has overhead. Check your pages and see if you can increase the payload in each request so as to reduce the overall number of individual requests.

At this point, you've optimized the behavior on one server, and you have to "scale out". Now, things get very complicated very fast. Load-balancing scenarios of various types (sharding, DNS-driven, dumb balancing, etc), separating read data from write data on different DBs, going to a virtualization solution like Google Apps, offload static content to a big CDN service, use a language like Erlang or Scala and parallelize your app, etc...

Single entry point, pages data in the database, pulled by associating GET variable with database entry (?pageid=whatever)

Potential nightmare for maintenance. And also for development if you have team of more than 2-3 people. You would need to create a set of strict rules for everyone to adhere to - effort that would be much better spent if using MVC. Same goes for 2.

MVC (Alright guys, I'm all for it, but can't grasp the concept besides checking all tutorials and frameworks out there, do they store "view" in database? Seems to me from examples that if you have 1000 pages of same kind they can be shaped by 1 model, but I'll still need to have 1000 "views" files?)

It depends how many page layouts are there. Most MVC frameworks allow you to work with structured views (i.e. main page views, sub-views). Think of a view as HTML template for the web page. How many templates and sub-templates inside you need is exactly how many view's you'll have. I believe most websites can get away with up to 50 main views and up to 100 subviews - but those are very large sites. Looking at some sites I run, it's more like 50 views in total.

DAL/DAO/DDD - i learned about these terms by diligently reading through stack overflow before posting question. Not sure if it belongs to this list

It does. DDD is great if you need meta-views or meta-models. Say, if all your models are quite similar in structure, but differ only in database tables used and your views almost map 1:1 to models. In that case, it is a good time for DDD. A good example is some ERP software where you don't need a separate design for all the database tables, you can use some uniform way to do all the CRUD operations. In this case you could probably get away with one model and a couple of views - all generated dynamically at run-time using meta-model that maps database columns, types and rules to logic of programming language. But, please note that it does take some time and effort to build a quality DDD engine so that your application doesn't look like hacked-up MS Access program.

Sit down and create my own architecture (likely to do if nobody enlightens me here:)

If you're building a public-facing website, you're most likely going to do it well with MVC. A very good starting point is to look at CodeIgniter video tutorials. It helped me understand what MVC really is and how to use it way better than any HOWTO or manual I read. And they only take 29minutes altogether:

http://codeigniter.com/tutorials/

Enjoy.

I'm a fan of MVC because I've found it easier to scale your team when everything has a place and is nice and compartmentalized. It takes some getting used to, but the easiest way to get a handle on it is to dive in.

That said definitely check your local library to see if they have the O'Reilley book on scaling: http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596102357 which is a good place to start.

If you're creating a "big" website and don't fully grasp MVC or a web framework then a CMS might be a better route since you can expand it with plugins as you see fit. With this route you can worry more about the content and page structure rather than the platform. As long as you pick the appropriate CMS.

I would suggest to create a mock app with some of the web mvc frameworks in the wild and pick one, with which your development was smooth enough. Establishing your code on a solid basis is fundamental, if you want to grasp concepts of mvc and be ready to add new functionality to your web easily.