Hey all!

I know this has been posted several times, however, I don't see any conclusion...

When my DNN install starts up, it takes approx. 7 minute on a dual processor machine.  Does anybody know any way to increase the startup time?

Thx :)

That's just the nature of the beast guys.  It's some part DNN and some part the way the code gets run in IIS and some part the way .Net works.  Sites running JSP are the same.  There is an initial compile and caching of the code and from then on it's run from cache and not recompile each time.

There is also several different levels of caching going on.  There is the caching that DNN does (I'm not real sure about his part as I haven't looked at it really), IIS caching and then the .Net framwork caching.  All of which need tweaked and played with to find the optimal settings for your particular install. 

The BIG sites that are using asp .net and seem so fast work exactly the same way as DNN or any other .net or jsp sites.  They don't seem slow to you because they have been optimized to death, have hundreds of thousands of hits a day so the process doesn't have to restart, and the biggie is they are located in server farms where the chances of you being the first request for that particular page on that particular server to be the hit that restarts the server is just about as low as could be.

In the public beta testing days right after MSN was switched over to .Net I remember a few times were I had to wait awhile for the page to come up as they were just working on all the optimizations.

Thanks for all of the responses!

What I was really looking for is if somebody has done something such as enabled a method that allows you to compile everything DNN in advance, store that in a staging ground (written to disk), and then read from the staging ground every time DNN would typically compile.  This way, as long as you make no changes, your startup times should be near-instantaneous (as fast as your disk reads?) as you would not have to go through the compile phase over and over again.

But yes, server farms are quite efficient.