rfcontreras

Yes, it worked. 

Thanks!

Hi Marc,

I was able to restore all the attachments with a droplet backup in DigitalOcean.

Thanks for your help

Hi Mark

I've reverted the site from the backup (files and db, excluding attachments) but I have the attachments on a separate drive (I rsync them), when I restored the site and copied the attachments they're not visible, and the names does not match. 

Today I've tried to upgrade to latest, finally I was able to do but attachments are not longer shown. I've been investigating and the uplodaded attachments has an identifier, for example on the post the thumbnail is

/monthly_2023_08/6.jpg.7fed07b5b1adbab6cb0b2641508a9db0.jpg and the larger version is /monthly_2023_08/6.jpg.7fed07b5b1adbab6cb0b2641508a9db0.jpg

but the stored file is 

6.jpg.0f2bf8f7491b270375555c70465e4f16.jpg for the thumbnail and the large version is large.6.jpg.a3c80479dee9db9b33784e2773f09993.jpg

Now I cant show attachments. 

I've restored the previous site and the problem remains. 

I'm desperate, please help

Best regards

Ricardo

I've been trying to upgrade to latest and I'm getting this error. I CAN access thru SSH and SFTP to my server, but the install script keep saying this message.

Help is appreciated

Regards

Ricardo

Self hosted installations will have the upgrade for free or being a major release it's paid?

Regards

Ricardo

Hi Stuart,

Thanks for the time to explain this, really appreciated!

Best regards

Ricardo

I've didn't notice that until today. May I ask why ? Is there a workaround ? My attachements are getting bigger, backup's takes ages and I need to reduce the site footprint.

Best regards

Ricardo

Hi Marc, 

Yes, I've read that, but it used to have the option to rebuild them, was removed? 

Hi, 

I've changed the image dimensions for my forum, both the maximum size to save and to show, usually after this change there's an option to "rebuild existing images". Now it's missing. Any clue ?

Best regards

Ricardo

Hi Nathan,

Thanks for your reply! I'm using "Default" but I don't know why the webfont is still being loaded, that's why I'm asking if you can "remove" the webfont loading.

Thanks!

Ricardo

On 7/16/2023 at 5:54 AM, opentype said:

If loading webfonts is not acceptable in terms of the loading times, the solution is simple: don’t use webfonts, which Invision Community already supports. onLoad is not the right moment to activate webfonts. 

Hi OpenType, 

I've been searching about not using webfonts but I can't find the setting. It's a IPB setting or some coding is needed ?

Regards

Ricardo

Hi OpenType,

I've changed the theme code to inject the widht and height, and improved a lot, and sent the ads below the fold (not optimal) and I've got a noticeable improvement. 

Thanks for your feedback

Ricardo

Thanks Randy, 

Hope its does change for worse, I've improved 3 seconds the times!, from 6 to 3 seconds page load.

Regards

Ricardo

Is it me, or CloudFlare RocketLoader is now working and not breaking anything? I've been running it since two hours ago and everything is working correctly...

Best regards

Hi Marc,

These ads are from the "advertising" section of Invision, they're not external. 

Dear Jim

Thanks, I'll try that! 

Regards

Ricardo

Thanks for your reply Adlago.

A quick test
- Your message for guests to sign up is your LCP - and it creates a serious delay…
 

Yes, I'm aware of that. My decision should be "keep it" and get more subscribers or "remove it" and improve LCP. This is a stock block with HTML, it's supposed to be cached and speedy, right ?

-Core Web Vitals Assessment: Failed
- You have a problem with contrast on different buttons
- Low image resolution
- Having an issue with touch target areas on mobile

I'm aware of the accesibility issues, but should not be related with speed afaik.

The css and js are loaded as a block, you can defer them but ALL of them, a lot of investigation and testing is needed in order to improve things. I guess you've spent a lot of time and effort to achieve that, I don't know where to start without a lot of extra coding. 

Regarding ads, you're right, but invision does not have a setting for height or width. I'll remove them and do the testing, and I'll let you know my findings. 

This is the tip I've followed (and later remove it) regarding CSS.

It's https://www.espacioprofundo.com

For the record, my stack is

Nginx

Php 8.1 with opcache

Redis

MariaDB (with and without cache)

Cloudflare

Everything hosted on a DigitalOcean droplet with Ubuntu 20.04, 16 Gb or RAM, 8 virtual CPU's, on the SFO Datacenter. 

Dear all,

I'm having a couple issues that I would like to address, and probably you've noticed the same.

Preloading banner ads (Invision Advertising)

A) I've noticed that my ads are adding a lot of time to render, impacting the LCP around 750 ms. I've changed on the ACP the "lazy loading" of the resources but ads have not the lazyload code. Maybe preloading them improves the performance. It's noticeable that the ad is the last item loaded on the page. On top of that, when a guest visitor open a page, for a fraction of time the page is fully rendered, but since the ads changes dynamically I see a redraw of the whole page. 

B) CSS blocking the rendering

I've rolled back a change proposed by @Adlago which solves this, but overall the page load does not improve.

Running webpagetest we get the following waterfall. To get the HTML takes 780 ms which is not good, webfonts takes a full 1.25 seconds, but with the CSS and JS loaded the JS execution takes ages and the DOM load wait until some JS is executed, THEN it get the images. Document complete is done at the 6.5s mark. 

Even with cloudflare serving the images from an edge server very near, this advantage is dilluted. 

I'm looking for tips to improve the performance, beforehand I've used the stock theme, a stripped down theme, and the current theme, with the same luck. The new v5 is addressing any kind of improvement on these items ?

Thanks a lot for the feedback!

Ricardo

Hi Jim, that's a major modification, unfortunately forking an application code is a pain. 

Thanks 

Ricardo

Hi Randy,

That's the idea, would be great to remove all the menu for logged users, but don't know how to do that easily without breaking the rest of the site, the menu is fixed for all pages.

8 hours ago, Randy Calvert said:

By the way… Google is viewing the page as a guest so it should be seeing a cached version of it. So logged in status is irrelevant. Logout, clear ALL cookies for site and reload the page. Look at the cachability headers. Paste a link if you are not sure. 

Yes, google is viewing the page as guest, but even if it's completely cached, the response time on the syntethic benchmarks are awful. I guess JS is playing a big role on the page performance, and that's beyond the cloudflare caching, and this can't be optimized easily afaik.

Best regards

Ricardo

And Chrome Lighthouse for Mobile

Hi Randy, 

yes, these rules are included and content is being cached for guests. My point is to cache for everybody the pages content since never changes. 

Funny is that Cloudflare cache is working and pages takes no time to load (I guess due to the service worker), but the Pagespeed, webpagetest and gtmetrix benchmarks for guests show horrible numbers anyway. Even with several benchmarks the speed is the same.

Not comparing apples to apples, but I have a Magento site, extremely expensive in terms of resources, and having exactly the same technology (nginx, opcache, redis, mariadb, php8.1) the page experience is amazing, but on the Invision forum I get awful numbers.

Invision based Site

Magento based Site

At this point, I don't know what to do, show a stripped down version, remove functionality, disable plugins or default theme, etc. Nothing worked at all. 

I'm hosting in DigitalOcean with a big server, I've analyzed every portion of the page load, it's consistent around 1.5 to 3 seconds to load with my browser, but on synthetic benchmarks numbers are worse.

Honestly don't know what to do to improve the speed. On the continuous rise of social networks, we're losing subscribers, and on top of that this level of user experience is not good.

Best regards

Ricardo