dieselpowered Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Is it me, or has anyone else found that this site runs VERY slowly with this RC release? PLease understand that I not trying to knock the software, it look great and has a bunch of excellent new features, it just seems really slow?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DKiwi Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I find this site is often slow and noticeably slower than my site which runs on a dedicated server. If I was IPS I would want this forum to run as fast as possible so that prospective customers having a look at IPB weren't put off thinking that the software is slow when in fact the problem is almost certainly the hosting. From time to time IPS have said things may be slow as they doing some maintenance. Fair enough but they can't be doing maintenance that often. Nigel / 3DKiwi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasz Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 lol they shouldnt even have installed beta version on their main products: brave or stupidity? :P they should have just set up the beta site like they once had it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teraßyte Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 They have added some debug tools to help find problems with the topic marking system and other things that's why the site is slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Wers Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Generally 3.0.0 is slower than near-obsolete 2.3.6 version I cannot compare it because I didn't test RC on my board yet. My 2.3.6 board runs very fast. I am waiting for RC2 and then I send feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Craven Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='chasz' date='09 June 2009 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1244603036' post='1808710'] lol they shouldnt even have installed beta version on their main products: brave or stupidity? :P they should have just set up the beta site like they once had it. Honestly, the site had very few errors, and I was all over here when they upgraded, just goes to show they release GOOD software :P Why setup a beta when the customers can see first hand what they can expect from a beta release? It really did have few issues, and what better way to test the software than to have prospective buyers/forum admins test it in mass numbers. I would show off my hard months of work this way too, I think it's a more personalized approach with the customers. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 The site is running quite nicely for me. In fact, I was going to post something about this yesterday. The server resource stats, since we made some changes 1-2 weeks ago, have actually been better than they were on 2.3 at many times. e.g. yesterday with over 700 users online, the load was around 2, the CPU usage was at 16-30%, and we had 900MB available memory (out of 6GB, but mysql runs on the same box as apache here). That's better than it was frequently on 2.3. What browser are you using? I just recently (like 2 days ago) switched from Firefox to Safari and the site has been blazing for me since. Firefox 3.0's javascript handling seems to be quite horrible compared to it's competitors. And yes, for the past 2-3 days we have had debug code running on the server to log topic markers for some users, so things may be slower at times due to that. We always update our company forums with the beta release before releasing it to customers. You just can't catch the same things in a test environment that you can catch in a live environment such as this. 30 users online compared to 700. 10,000 topics compared to 600,000. You get a big difference in resource usage with differences like that, which is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
envonge Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Takes me 10 seconds or more to load each page. When RC1 was on here it was much faster than that (1-2 seconds). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Still maybe it's time to get better server. This slow downs are not due browser but software or hardware. This topic took 5.2809 sec to generate. You can enable at bottom load value so we can see load of box, I tried to browse the forums 2 topics are fast ~0.5 to generate, and then few are slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 The load right now is about 3.3, and the CPU is at 50% usage, for what it's worth. The hardware/software seems to be coping just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I just loaded this page and using the developer tools in Safari it took 2.20 seconds. The HTML itself was generated and downloaded from the server in 996ms. That's pretty fast if you ask me. Took less than 1 second to generate this entire page with round 500 users online. I simply am not seeing regular 10 second page loads. Sure, once in a while something might get hung up, or we might get a spike in traffic, or someone might try to DOS us, or someone might do a particularly intensive search, and so on - but on the whole the speeds seem just fine to me. :unsure: Slow page loads, here, are the exception and not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 How many cores 4 or 8? If is 4 that load is so so, if is 8 that is better. If I have to choose i would say it's hardware because slow downs are so random, and if I visit on non busy hours I do not experience any problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 This might help: http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/?url=http://forums.invisionpower.com//&id=995242 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 It's not a very good tool for this sort of thing, however. ;) You see, once you make a request to the page, your browser caches images, javascript and CSS files which is 4/5 of the load time that site reports. When I do the same tests using built in browser tools (such as YSlow or Safari's Resources monitor) the results are drastically different. As for your earlier question, I have no idea how many cores. I don't know too much about the hardware on the box tbh, as it's not really my domain. We have other employees that maintain the hardware aspect of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robulosity2 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Funny how the graph on that site loaded before the actual site's frames did... 16 queries, 0.05274 sec ... Faster than my site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacenty Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 16 queries - 0.61 seconds - earlier it were about 0.10 seconds. On my 2.3.6 board with 500 users online I don't reach 0.10 for viewing topic or forum so why do we have 0.6 to 2.5 seconds to generate page? I count only data provided from board debug statistics It's easily visible that this site is much, much slower than my server that I figh with it that was very slow - I hope You remember this fights and argues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DKiwi Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Noticeably slower than my site that is hosted in the USA. Here's what I get clicking the link to read this thread. Nigel / 3DKiwi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunrisecc Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 This is what I saw earlier today. Whenever I would click on the Invision Power Services from the breadcrumb, I would have the worst response, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DKiwi Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Yup and here's what I get clicking on the thread title a bit later on today. Slower than before. Even worse is clicking on the use full editor button. Nigel / 3DKiwi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacenty Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 these resaults are very good joke if I would like to put new community on shared server. Probably no way to use IPB if it will be true and not fixed somehow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Matt Posted June 11, 2009 Management Share Posted June 11, 2009 I'm going to switch that debug bar off. People just obsess over it. Refresh. ooh x.xx secods. Refresh. ooh, faster. Refresh. Oh, a bit slower. Etc. Guys, we are on a VPS with other sites. We routinely have 500+ users online. We are being spidered heavily. Expecting loads of under 1 and load times of under 500ms is unrealistic on this forum. Just wait and see how it does on your own server. And if it's 100ms slower, don't worry about it there are worse things in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacenty Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I'm wondering my users feeling - that is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DKiwi Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I doubt it's the software. This site here has often been slow in the past and even when they were using 2.3.6 like what the rest of us are using now. Much more likely to be a hosting issue. Version 3 should be as quick as 2.3 was perhaps even quicker as there's been a lot of code tidying up done. Nigel / 3DKiwi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DKiwi Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Blimey. You're still on a VPS. You've got more traffic and members than my busy site with 19,000 members and I run on a dedicated server. I'm staggered. Prospective IPB customers are likely browsing this forum. I wonder how many have been put off by the slow speed? Nigel / 3DKiwi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Wers Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I think there is something wrong. OK, I try to explain what is suspicious. Read some text in any post and double click on random desired word, like this: On other sites when I double click on word it's marked in cca 0,2 second. But here when I double click on word I have to wait 1,5 second and then is word marked. Why?? I believe you understand what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.