Search results

Okay, I am not an expert fpr selling products in your shop. It was only a suggestion to find new ideas to reduce the load because reducing the load is the only way to solve most of your issues.

Why? Anyway, temporary remove (if possible set items inactive) all items that are not meant for the current season.

You can trust me if I say it. I have more than 20 years experience. If you buy a car, you also won't find any documentation that a car can only be used for driving on streets and not on arables. ;) The number of orders doesn't matter for calculating which hosting could be the best choice. If...

@Germont To prevent any issues caused by hosting limits you always should use a dedicated server or at least a virtual private server (VPS) that allows to set your own custom (script) limits and enough RAM. A shared hosting is never be able to handle a shop with than 2000 items or more. A HTTP...

What do you try to tell me?!

Maybe I am wrong and sorry in advance if I wrongly accuse you, but since you are using Litespeed you seem to have trouble with ESI and CodeIgnitor. I don't understand why? ESI is no PHP extension, so it can be used with whatever PHP based framework, with or without template engine. ESI tags are...

You need a different method to rebuild or to warmup the cache. The current method with internal cache crawler works serial. That means each URL must must be requestet first before the next URL will be requested. This way takes time, but maybe too much time for a higher number of URLs. Solution...

That means you don't have any need to solve it any longer, because you already solved it?

Finally and to extend your knowledge about economically cache warmup, read the following documentations. There is definitly no need to warmup the cache for Google bot and/or to define cache rules for Google or any other bot to get better Pagespeed score. It may irritate, but I have disabled...

What do you expect? Each of your modifications can have the potential for interactions with other functions. Sorry to say that, but you have maneuvered yourself in a street with dead end.

No, I don't think so. In my mind the most important and the very first way would be to isolate the reason and to find out, if the issue only happens with crawler or independently from it. For this it would be very very very important to use same UA for crawler and for manual request with...

Really? If so, something must be wrong with defined cache parameters or/and cache varies. Anyway, I am out from here and can't help anymore. To solve your issue someone must have access to your installation.

Okay, my previously question again. Can you find out any difference with cache lifetime if URLs have only 1 or multiple GET parameters?

And this issue only happens with internal cache crawler?

Different cache for different URLs is not what my question was intended for. You say you have issues with cache lifetime and the cache lifetime is different as you defined it, right?

YES!

1 GET Parameter: &product_id=41 Multiple GET Parameter: &path=20_27&product_id=41

Reducing the number of URLs is a general advice and isn't meant for to solve your problem. Can you find out any different behaviour if a URL has more than 1 GET or only 1 parameter?

Once again, if you send redirection header 302 browser will cache it, not LiteSpeed. LiteSpeed neither caches it, nor can control browser cache behaviour if this header is sent. It is not possible to send 302 header and to tell browser that he shouldn't cache it. It is inherent to the system...

Can you find out any different behaviour if a URL has more than 1 GET parameter?