Nice test, but...

[The It's Man]

I haven't helped testing (sorry, you can spank me )

Could it also be because this server has a much bigger load in threads and users. Looking up info in a database where 4500+ accounts takes more time than 1200+ users.

Same thing goes for number of threads/posts.

 

[Morrus]

Could it also be because this server has a much bigger load in threads and users. Looking up info in a database where 4500+ accounts takes more time than 1200+ users.

Same thing goes for number of threads/posts.

That's probably a very good point, actually. I remember when Eric used Gamespy's servers that the General forum there had to be pruned regulalry lest the number of threads caused the boards to crash.

Anyone else got any opinions on this?

 

[Grazzt]

Ah..nevermind.....

 

[Henry]

I say look at two facts: for one whole day, on an inferior hardware box, with an inferior internet connect, Mortality took on ALL of our traffic, including 750 registrations (very system-intensive), with 450 users at peak times, and DID not crash.

Second fact: the Operating system used was long been touted in the past as a strong server OS. Apache is in the same class as IIS - each has its champions; Microsoft uses SQL Server with windows 2000 enterprise servers, and no doubt multiple very strong load-balanced servers. We may have to face it - The problem may even be in MySQL.

I trust Adlon has the proper tech knowledge and experience to help morrus in this situation, and that Morrus has for the past year always steered this community in the right path. I for one will stop armchair quarterbacking until Morrus asks for more opinions. ENWorld is in very good hands.

 

[reapersaurus]

Microsoft uses SQL Server with windows 2000 enterprise servers, and no doubt multiple very strong load-balanced servers.

Yes, Microsoft has never been anything but consistent in their insistence that at the minimum, you should probably have OVER 256 MB RAM at the minimum for a Win 2K server with any kind of load.

We have MUCH more load than what they are talking about with those minimum recommendations.

edit: I would also not automatically trust the hosting service that Morrus is using that they are not using the server for other things as well.

 

[Adlon]

A slight correction on ONE post here: My server is running other intensive apps. An IRC server, 35+ hosted websites, 2 or 3 of which are full blown E-Commerce sites, with another 10 being high traffic sites (realestate sites, here in florida, 1000+ hits a day each), all of which were in operation while we hammered Mortality.

 

[Adlon]

Originally posted by The It's Man
Could it also be because this server has a much bigger load in threads and users. Looking up info in a database where 4500+ accounts takes more time than 1200+ users.

Same thing goes for number of threads/posts.

The first part of that does indeed have some bearing, the second part has NO bearing. When a user goes into a forum, the DB is querried only for the posts in that thread. So, threads/posts only has relevance when a search is done to see X posts by a certain author, or a keyword search.

Also, again, the MASS registration added greatly to the slowdown.
Registrations write to the DB in many areas, where posts add to one area, and link to one other in the DB.

I'm still looking at the possibilities of the first part.

 

[Psionicist]

According to some mortality.net headers, the server is running
Apache 2.0.36 and PHP 4.2.0

 

[The It's Man]

Adlon, when I click on a link of a topic in a forum, it does make a search into a bigger database on ENWorld than it did on your forums (BTW, I think it's great that you voluntererd to put this on a test on your server, glad that it didn't start smoking .

Morrus, I guess pruning these boards (well, the GF - or maybe only the "old" OT posts) won't be bad for performance. IIRC sometimes Eric did a "reindexing" of the database once in a while. I guess it won't be hurt for performance - bad news is that the boards should be offline for a while when you do that.

 

[hong]

Morrus, I guess pruning these boards (well, the GF - or maybe only the "old" OT posts) won't be bad for performance.

I must also mention that "Pruning the GF" sounds like a terribly hazardous practice, albeit an excellent name for a rock band.


Hong "for certain expansions of GF, anyway" Ooi