Forum Getting Slower ?

I've made soem changes to caching functions. Please let us know if you experience any improvements in pageload.

As Mark mentioned, you are encouraged to clear your cookies and cached files at least once a week if not often.
Many times, there are harmful cookies and files left on your computers, that may affect your overall browsing experience.

Val.

I disagree with the above. I've never seen or heard about a "harmful" cookie. There can be some that are out of date but they are not viral. Clearing all your cookies is dumb because if you use a lot of sites that have logins (um... like the insurance carrier or GA sites) you will lose them and have to start logging in each time. If you want to clear cookies, just clear the ones for this site... not everything!

Cache files are a different thing, but most modern browsers manage cache well such that you only need to clear cache if you are getting "old" pages from some site. It can't hurt to clear your entire cache, but when you do some sites will load slower the first time you go back to them as the browser will re-write and log the cache file.

Clearing cookies is fine if you can't log in. Same with cache, but with most modern browsers it won't make pages load faster if the server is already impacted.

The caching functions that Val is talking about is server-side and yes, doing that CAN speed up a server or a site, but its more of a tweak than anything else.

The site is hosted at eboundhost.com, probably for their unlimited service for a $3.95 a month rate. That's real cheap. How do they do that? They overload their servers with too many (high-traffic) sites. My best guess is that's why this is slow.

If this is on their VPS service for $25 or $49 a month, then something is wrong because it should not be this slow, even when doing database backups.

While this site has a large database, I don't see it being traffic-bound. Few web-boards are... unless they are doing a lot of streaming video.

If you want to see the traceroute, click here.

And if it were struggling under the traffic it would seem to me that a competent ISP could do some load-balancing such that the site would be less slow. (It's been pretty bad this morning in California... on and off.)

They have a dedicated deal for $99 a month. That's a good price. I pay double that at PairNetworks for Jaya123.com and all my other domains. Perhaps this is were Sam is going to move us?

Some boards take up a collection each year by sending a five spot or more to the owner to use in paying for the board. Most people are happy to pay what they can. On one board I'm on they raised so much money, they had enough for about 4 years of service and gave the rest way as a scholarship to someone. They even had one vendor offer to pay the whole load, but subscribers didn't want that... fearing some kind of "control" over content. People will gladly pay for a web-board community that they like.

All Sam has to do is say the word and I'm sure we'll all send him whatever he needs to run this zoo on a dedicated server.

Al
 
I do have unlimited slow hosting with Godaddy if anyone wants it. LOL I don't recommend the hosting to anyone.

The check is in the mail. I will get Obama to send it for me.
 
This is run on a VPS. All you need to do is check the nameservers to see what it is running on.

You are saying that "vds103.eboundhost.com" equates to a VPS? I didn't know that. I don't know much about VPS systems because I've never had one and have never quite understood the concept of why Apache or MySQL running on a virtual server configuration should be faster than a non-virtual. There are usually fewer virtuals on the hardware but each one has a high load factor (I would think!)

We are not moving to their $99 dedicated server, we are moving to a new ssd server quite a bit more expensive than that.

According to some studies you will not get that much more bang for your buck.

You might want to read this before you invest:


5. Conclusion
Flash-based solid-state drives (SSDs) are a new storage tech-
nology for the laptop and desktop markets. Recently "enter-
prise SSDs" have been targeted at the server storage market,
raising the question of whether, and how, SSDs should be
used in servers. This paper answers the above question by
doing a cost-benefit analysis for a range of workloads. An
additional contribution of the paper is a modeling and opti-
mization approach which could be extended to cover other
solid-state technologies.

We show that, across a range of different server work-
loads, replacing disks by SSDs is not a cost-effective option
at today's prices. Depending on the workload, the capac-
ity/dollar of SSDs needs to improve by a factor of 3–3000
for SSDs to be able to replace disks. The benefits of SSDs as an intermediate caching tier are also limited, and the cost of
provisioning such a tier was justified for fewer than 10% of
the examined workloads.

On the other hand, some studies are more positive about SSD servers. Here is one.

Personally, I'd suggest you move the site to a dedicated hard-drive server first and see what performance you get before you spend the extra money on an SSD. Also, the longer you wait, the lower the price/gib will get.

Just a thought.

YMMV

Al
 
Did the site go down for anyone else yesterday?

From what I understand it was only down for "Joe Wilson" conservatives. I'm told that the owner of the board has instituted a new feature called "No-neocon Tuesday" where only mods and libs have access to the forum.

13258468v3_240x240_Front.jpg
 
Back
Top