Image of the glider from the Game of Life by John Conway
Skip to content

Moving to Movable Type

After weighing in the pros and cons, it looks like I'll be migrating my blog, and all of it's data to a Movable Type install, rather than a WordPress install? Why? I'm hoping to take some strain off the server by removing the database on the posts.

Honestly, I don't know why blog engines have databases for posts, when static HTML files can be produced rather effortlessly. I understand WP Cache does something similar, but I've had mixed results with that plugin.

Anyway, the blog migration will probably happen sometime this weekend, ready for a new life Monday. Also, I'm hoping that I can preserve date timestamps in the RSS feed, so as to not spam the planets that I currently push to. I'll be testing in a development environment first, to make sure everything goes smooth, not like you care. :)

See you on the other side.

{ 8 } Comments

  1. BUGabundo using Minefield 3.7a1pre on Ubuntu 64 bits | August 22, 2009 at 2:08 am | Permalink

    i've become very fond on posterous.

  2. Ali Gündüz using Shiretoko 3.5.2 on GNU/Linux | August 22, 2009 at 2:18 am | Permalink

    I didn't know Movable Type has gone free, so I was WTF'ing for a minute there. :)

  3. foo using Galeon 2.0.7 on Debian GNU/Linux 64 bits | August 22, 2009 at 4:21 am | Permalink

    Try ikiwiki instead!

  4. patrickdk using Unknown on Unknown O.S. | August 22, 2009 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    I don't really agree with you. I see lots of my customers with flatfile scripts like yabbs and they run horribly slow. Mainly cause they store everything in one directory of thousands of files instead of hashing it out. The database screams so much faster and less load than them.

  5. Aaron using Debian IceWeasel 3.0.12 on Debian GNU/Linux 64 bits | August 22, 2009 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    @patrickdk When you get on the frontpage of Digg or Reddit, you're grateful that your database isn't getting slammed. Static HTML pages are so much faster, and much less overhead than DB queries in such a scenario.

  6. Jacob Peddicord using Firefox 3.5 on Ubuntu 64 bits | August 22, 2009 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    Be sure to update your Atom template (atom.xml under Design > Templates) to be reader friendly. By default, when you edit a post, MT will change the "updated" field while leaving the published field the same. This makes sense, but most feed readers will burp your posts (Planet included) when you update them and you'll end up spamming your feeds when you edit posts.

    To remedy, find the relevant lines in atom.xml and change them to this:
    http://pastebin.com/f4b77ce71

    (Basically, just make the published and updated lines look the same.)

    On all other levels MT is awesome; you'll enjoy it.

  7. boredandblogging using Firefox 3.0.13 on Ubuntu 64 bits | August 22, 2009 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    From my own experiences, MT is a better platform than WP. The only downsides I've seen are a lack of plugins, decent themes, and a slight learning curve.

    Might be tedious for you, but it would be nice to see a good walk-through on the transition.

  8. Joseph Scott using Safari 530.19 on Mac OS | August 25, 2009 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

    As a point of reference WordPress.com uses an advanced cache plugin for memcached (makes for fewer DB queries) and the batcache plugin to cache the rendered HTML of pages in memcached (serves static content from memcached instead of a file). Both of these work for regular WordPress.org powered blogs as well.

    We do a fair bit of traffic ( http://www.quantcast.com/profile-search/wordpress.com ) and have found this to work pretty well.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.

Switch to our mobile site