Server Side Includes -- Are they hogs?

Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Server Side Includes -- Are they hogs?

  1. #1
    Chris Rugger Guest

    Default Server Side Includes -- Are they hogs?

    I&#039ve read that SSIs are a great way to save coding time, but I&#039ve also read, less often, that they are memory hogs. Is this true?<BR><BR>We did have some memory errors on our sites way back when, when we used some SSIs that were including some pretty big function-definition-files, but I don&#039t think we ever conclusively proved that the SSIs were responsible. (After we took the SSIs out, we stopped getting the errors, but I wasn&#039t sure if other factors may have also been at work).<BR><BR>I&#039d love to be able to go back to using them here and there. Do you think I could still use SSIs, just make sure to use stripped-down versions of the function-definition files, that didn&#039t include so many functions?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1969

    Default RE: Server Side Includes -- Are they hogs?

    I have no hard facts to support one side or the other, but I say use SSIs like there is no tomorrow. It saves oodles of time coding, leads to fewer bugs, etc. All very good things!<BR><BR>I look at it like this: a Web server has only one major task: retrieve a file and send it to the client. So, it should be pretty **** good at retrieving files. So, I don&#039t think SSIs would be a slow-down factor, unless you are including gargantuous files.<BR><BR>On 4Guys we include three files per page using SSIs. Two of these pages also include either two or three pages themselves using SSIs.

  3. #3
    Chris Rugger Guest

    Default RE: Server Side Includes -- Are they hogs?

    It&#039s very late of me to say so, but thanks, Scott! You revived my confidence in SSIs, and I&#039ve been using them with no server strain and greater ease of updating...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts