3.0.2 is way slower than 2.3.5

[Aikar]

I upgraded my forums from 2.3.6 with 8900 members and 68k post. Our topics load in .5 to 1s "processing time" with 73 active users and im not even sure if theres any memory caching going on or not yet.


slower yes but its reasonable.

[Artefaqs Corporation]

[quote name='bfarber' date='20 August 2009 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1250775906' post='1846754']
One more thing to add, though I'm not sure it'll help you any. As technology progresses, you'll find you simply need more resources to stay up to date. It's how computers and software work, I'm afraid.

2.0 uses more resources than 1.3
2.1 uses more resources than 2.0
2.3 uses more resources than 2.1
3.0 uses more resources than 2.3

Windows ME used more resources than Windows 98
Windows 2000 used more resources than NT/ME/98
Windows XP uses more resources than Win2K
Windows Vista uses more resources than Windows XP

Mac OS X 10.5.9 Snow Leopard uses FEWER resources than Mac OS X 10.5.8 Leopard.
Ditto for a couple of other version of the operating system.

I don't think telling your customers that "Windows is fat and bloated, so we can be, too" is exactly what they want to hear.

"It's how computers and software work" is not entirely true. Look at how Firefox, Safari, Opera, and other pieces of software get faster, smaller, or both with each iteration. Even Windows7 is supposed to be less of a pig than Vista. There goes your Microsoft alibi.

[bfarber]

Your analogys are off.

Mac OSX is more resource intensive than Mac OS9

HOWEVER, through out the 10 series, they continually work at improving resource usage and efficiency so that by the time you reach the end of the 10 series, it is as efficient as possible (and 9/10 more so than the first iteration of the series).

As I've said before, Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. Really it's just an update to Vista, however Microsoft doesn't generally do releases in the same fashion. They release patches, or an entirely new version, and not much in between. To that extent, since Windows 7 is building and improving upon Vista, my analogy above still stands.

Same with Firefox or Opera or Safari.

Firefox 3 uses WAYYY more resources than Firefox 2. HOWEVER, Firefox 3.0.1 improved upon 3.0.0, and 3.0.2 improved upon 3.0.1.

It's the same way here. IPB3 uses more resources than IPB 2 (as a blatant general statement - this largely depends upon the features you enable). However, 3.0.1 uses less resources than 3.0.0 did, and 3.0.2 improved greatly upon 3.0.1. It's probable that you will see improvements with 3.0.3 over 3.0.2. And this is what we've said all along in this topic. Over the lifetime of the 3 series, we will continuously improve the software so that it becomes as efficient as possible.


You have to use analogies that match up here. :)

[Lewis P]

You've got a slight issue with your examples anyway. ;)

OS X 10.5.9 is NOT Snow Leopard. It is still Leopard, which is the 10.5 series. OS X 10.6.x is Snow Leopard.

[AtariAge]

I upgraded my forum from 2.3.6 to 3.0.2 two days ago. Now that I have all the posts converted (which I ran in the background and took a good day to complete), the forum seems to be running at a reasonable speed. This morning I re-enabled Xcache and enabled CSS caching for the default skin. It's a fairly busy forum (over 300 active users at the moment) with 1.8 million posts running on a dedicated server. I am also using Sphinx, which is a godsend.

..Al

[Artefaqs Corporation]

[quote name='bfarber' date='21 August 2009 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1250873228' post='1847332']
Your analogys are off.

Mac OSX is more resource intensive than Mac OS9

HOWEVER, through out the 10 series, they continually work at improving resource usage and efficiency so that by the time you reach the end of the 10 series, it is as efficient as possible (and 9/10 more so than the first iteration of the series).

As I've said before, Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. Really it's just an update to Vista, however Microsoft doesn't generally do releases in the same fashion. They release patches, or an entirely new version, and not much in between. To that extent, since Windows 7 is building and improving upon Vista, my analogy above still stands.

Same with Firefox or Opera or Safari.

Firefox 3 uses WAYYY more resources than Firefox 2. HOWEVER, Firefox 3.0.1 improved upon 3.0.0, and 3.0.2 improved upon 3.0.1.

It's the same way here. IPB3 uses more resources than IPB 2 (as a blatant general statement - this largely depends upon the features you enable). However, 3.0.1 uses less resources than 3.0.0 did, and 3.0.2 improved greatly upon 3.0.1. It's probable that you will see improvements with 3.0.3 over 3.0.2. And this is what we've said all along in this topic. Over the lifetime of the 3 series, we will continuously improve the software so that it becomes as efficient as possible.


You have to use analogies that match up here. :)

You also have analogical issues, and flatter yourself to compare the complexity of a BBS like Invision with an operating system like Windows.

Regardless, I'm sorry if I came off as brusque. The only times I ever visit this forum is when something has gone horribly wrong with my forum, so I tend to be a little cranky by the time I'm surfing around this forum trying to find solutions to my issues.

My latest fiasco is when I upgraded from 3.0.1 to 3.0.2 today and now my users can't post messages without getting error alerts, the menus don't work right, and parts of the ACP are disabled (see as-yet-unanswered tickets 596738 and 596753) so I'm a little grouchy. Especially when I suspect it's some kind of javascript issue, but your software prohibits searching for the word "javascript." Glad I don't run a developers' forum.

[Charles]

All confusing analogies aside:

Improving performance is an ongoing process which we continue to work on. Don't forget that we host thousands of IPBs so performance is extremely important to us as well :)

Version 3.0.2 is faster than 3.0.1 which was faster than 3.0.0. We will continue to improve performance as we release each version, get feedback, do more research and testing, release new version, repeat. We have already received great feedback from users saying that 3.0.2/3.0.1 was a huge improvement from 3.0.0.

[media]

[quote name='dr. Jekyll' date='20 August 2009 - 03:43 AM' timestamp='1250761438' post='1846697']
IPB 3.0.x has a mod rewrite and cannot be as fast as the old IPB 2.3. In any case the IPS staff is making a terrific job of optimization since the first beta release and I believe the result is more that acceptable.



Yes this is definetly right....

[quote name='Charles' date='21 August 2009 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1250877857' post='1847357']

Version 3.0.2 is faster than 3.0.1 which was faster than 3.0.0. We will continue to improve performance as we release each version, get feedback, do more research and testing, release new version, repeat. We have already received great feedback from users saying that 3.0.2/3.0.1 was a huge improvement from 3.0.0.

Count me in

[Ditchmonkey]

If IPB wasn't creating more feature rich software to work with modern, faster servers, they wouldn't be creating the best possible product. Time to get after your server providers and tell them to upgrade their 5 year old hardware.

[Zero5854]

ok aside from all the "high tech" talk in here the man has a point....3.x is significantly slower then 2.x. I dont have a little baby server at all and I could tell the difference as well. Granted newer OS, scripts, etc do start to be laggier each version due to adding things so I understand BUT it could be better. At this point I am satisfied with the overall performance of this version.