* Having a content server behind a firewall / in a DMZ becomes less of an issue if a reverse proxy server is implemented
* Implementing redundancy is easier with the static model. Setting up multiple web servers is easier and less costly than setting up multiple content servers.

Our organisation has two websites running on UCM. We have decided to go with the static delivery model for and with dynamic delivery model for the other. We have also implemented a reverse proxy server for security.

One is the organisation's public website. Content is fairly static - contains things like "About the company", "Contact information" etc. It has only a small number of contributors, and is a fairly small website. 100% uptime is considered important for this website as its the public face of the company. For this website we chose the static delivery model:
* Publishing time is not a concern as its a small website
* Easy to set up multiple web servers for redundancy

The other is a much larger website that is a members-only website. Members require a login to access this website. It contains a lot of content that is updated frequently by various contributors within the company. It is to some extent a B-to-B website (whereas the other one is B-to-C) so its important for content updates to be available immediately. For this website we chose to stick with dynamic delivery.
* Multiple contributors
* Large website - static publish would have been slow
* Content updates available immediately, don't have to wait for publish
* Easier to set up member login functionality

0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?