Carl M Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Im just wondering why you go around sites double clicking words? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='Matt' date='11 June 2009 - 08:33 AM' timestamp='1244702029' post='1808955'] 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. You should say that from start, that is different story then. This random slow downs are definitely not good for business, because most people would relate that to software. You should move to dedicated server with this amount of users and posts, this would eliminate so many questions about loading speed and if this is related to IPB 3 RC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Craven Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='Bono' date='10 June 2009 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1244677591' post='1808910'] This might help:http://tools.pingdom...com//&id=995242 This kind of site honestly I don't agree with, it's calculating information for EVERYTHING it downloads meaning it's working it's own script to tell you the download time of EVERY single bit of data on a website, which in turn slows it down, second to that who knows what kind of connection/hardware this site is running on? It's funny that it says the page took 12.8 seconds the first time, and a second submit says 9 seconds, obviously rubbish considering I load the pages in just under a second. It doesn't have anything in the cache which all of us do! Granted there are many posts and members on this site, but I think the majority of people on here who complain about speed have no understanding of webservers, ISP's, data etc. It's not just about software and hardware, there are so many factors involved. The server could be hosted in Scotland, and someone in Glasgow (which is in Scotland) with the same connection as myself (25MB) could possibly not load the site as fast as me at times (I'm in Arizona now), too many factors involved. It's just not as simple as some of you think! An example, just another site, using multiple geographic servers with DIFFERENT speeds, not one of which is over 11 seconds (none over 9 infact) and check out the two 5MB connections Bejing loads it faster than Detroit, loading faster than faster connections closer to the server. Current Time: 06/11/2009 04:46:55 Again I think these test are pretty inaccurate, although the above page loads do not include the CACHE for this site either, so they are pretty damn fast loads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='Lee Craven' date='11 June 2009 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1244713414' post='1808997'] This kind of site honestly I don't agree with, it's calculating information for EVERYTHING it downloads meaning it's working it's own script to tell you the download time of EVERY single bit of data on a website, which in turn slows it down, second to that who knows what kind of connection/hardware this site is running on? It's funny that it says the page took 12.8 seconds the first time, and a second submit says 9 seconds, obviously rubbish considering I load the pages in just under a second. It doesn't have anything in the cache which all of us do! Granted there are many posts and members on this site, but I think the majority of people on here who complain about speed have no understanding of webservers, ISP's, data etc. It's not just about software and hardware, there are so many factors involved. The server could be hosted in Scotland, and someone in Glasgow (which is in Scotland) with the same connection as myself (25MB) could possibly not load the site as fast as me at times (I'm in Arizona now), too many factors involved. It's just not as simple as some of you think! An example, just another site, using multiple geographic servers with DIFFERENT speeds, not one of which is over 11 seconds (none over 9 infact) and check out the two 5MB connections Bejing loads it faster than Detroit, loading faster than faster connections closer to the server. Current Time: 06/11/2009 04:46:55 Again I think these test are pretty inaccurate, although the above page loads do not include the CACHE for this site either, so they are pretty damn fast loads! That oscillation in loading speed is reason why customers here ask about slow loading. My site is also hosted in US on dedicated server, and when i try this tool which is located in sweden and it is major monitoring service, time deviation which I get is 0.2-0.5 seconds. So fact remains that sometimes forum is loading really quickly and sometimes it is really slow 15+ seconds to load. I think we are paying customers which we pay for access to forums and updates should have site which is loading at decent speeds. And now days even budget quad core could power this site very quickly, so there is no need to invest in Nehalems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Matt Posted June 11, 2009 Management Share Posted June 11, 2009 Well, those were mostly due to bugs which we've fixed. Apart from the odd spike when a cron is running load is very stable and speed is moderate.This random slow downs are definitely not good for business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Craven Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='Bono' date='11 June 2009 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1244716469' post='1809002'] That oscillation in loading speed is reason why customers here ask about slow loading. My site is also hosted in US on dedicated server, and when i try this tool which is located in sweden and it is major monitoring service, time deviation which I get is 0.2-0.5 seconds. So fact remains that sometimes forum is loading really quickly and sometimes it is really slow 15+ seconds to load. I think we are paying customers which we pay for access to forums and updates should have site which is loading at decent speeds. And now days even budget quad core could power this site very quickly, so there is no need to invest in Nehalems. I think this thread is due to be close, none of you are understanding the reasons for the 'sometimes' slow issues, firstly the forum here is development in progress, secondly as many of the staff have pointed out, the site is been hammered by spiders (search engines for those of you confused ;) ) indexing the boards, the staff are debugging, implementing fixes etc. You will find that there are no problems at all if you are downloading from the client area, if support is so badly needed with a fast response then contact support (for paying customers), your own site will run way faster than here, I know mine does. And I don't believe the problems are with the server hardware, the site will be back upto speed if not faster than before when the 2.x.x boards were on here when they get done. Come on folks, don't continue to moan about the speed until at least they get past the Final build for a few weeks. This is all to be expected, optimization will eventually get up to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 If you feel the site is slow, all I can say is I'm sorry. As Lee mentioned, we're routinely doing debugging on this site for various reasons (especially given that we are running pre-final software) and this factors into a lot of things. We found an issue yesterday where a couple of requests to a specific topic triggered some infinite loops which slowed things down. We fixed those things yesterday and restarted Apache, but, the point is we're running pre-final software and we are still finding the odd-off issue now and then. Matt truncated the topic markers table today (no doubt was a little slow), which means a lot of processing for all users at first to rebuild marker records. There are constantly things going on that will affect speed, so if you are noticing fluctuations (like you've mentioned) then attribute it to the fact that we're probably doing something, or something else is happening on the server at the moment. When you test the software on your own server, and find specific issues, please do report them to us. A general "the site seems slow" topic isn't too overly helpful on it's own, however, I'm afraid. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr. Jekyll Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 If you click "view new content" the site is really slow, ...unacceptable slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Wers Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I upgraded my test board to RC2 and it's running fine. Little slower than my licensed board 2.3.6 but faster than this community board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtariAge Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='dr. Jekyll' date='11 June 2009 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1244732492' post='1809070'] If you click "view new content" the site is really slow, ...unacceptable slow. Yes, "View New Content" is very slow. ..Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme S. Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='AtariAge' date='11 June 2009 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1244734091' post='1809081'] Yes, "View New Content" is very slow. ..Al Haha, wow, that was slow. 15 seconds or so before the page loaded. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Energizer Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 only sometimes the site is slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditchmonkey Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 [quote name='AtariAge' date='11 June 2009 - 07:28 AM' timestamp='1244734091' post='1809081'] Yes, "View New Content" is very slow. ..Al There are definitely some performance issues here. Like these guys said, view new content takes very long to load. Just getting this reply form took over 20 seconds to load just now. I've been seeing this since rc2 was installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strike X Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Customers is always right. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Krohn Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I'm located in Croatia and it's loading pretty good for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasz Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 there s some bottle neck somewhere, 90% of the times it working but sometimes it lags.... maybe this board was being upgraded? but it needs to be optimised, and i dont think we will see it till 3.2, in 12 months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditchmonkey Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I think the problem with view new content is how it's searching. When I click that I get the following: There are 33977 new entries Now, what exactly is the definition of "new content" here? There certainly haven't been 33,977 new threads etc since I was on the site last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DKiwi Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Ditchmonkey - You would likely get that because when you leave the site you don't make the board as read. I do so when I returned today there were only 33 new entries. if not then blowed if I know why you get that many. When I clicked on the heading for this thread just now the query took 2.4 seconds. Seemed like an eternity and much slower than my site. 3DKiwi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teraßyte Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Matt truncated the markers table today that's why you had so many "New Content". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Lindy Posted June 12, 2009 Management Share Posted June 12, 2009 I hope to get the forums migrated this weekend. They're currently housed on our corporate VPS server which is under network stress due to all of the spidering, downloads, etc. It will hopefully be in its new home by Monday. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Lindy Posted June 13, 2009 Management Share Posted June 13, 2009 I like instant gratification - the forums are moved. How does it seem now? Note: As this is a fresh server, we may need to make a few tweaks here or there. You should, however, notice an obvious and immediate improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon D Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 It is noticeably faster. Would like to see it during peak hours tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparc Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 [quote name='Lindy' date='12 June 2009 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1244866681' post='1809546']the forums are moved. How does it seem now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Wers Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 This board is now faster than my RC2 test board! :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DKiwi Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Noticeably quicker for me now. Thank you. Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.72c24494603afd7a572d55d4a71e4af2.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.