BladeForums admin needs your help!

T

trelane

Site SWAT
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
12
Ok, so it's no secret that after the update to Virtual Bulletin the server started murdering kittens. There's now a pile of dead kittens outside the BFC datacenter/Mayan 2012 bunker, and they smell pretty awful. In our defense, the vB coders felt it necessary to quadruple the number of database fetches on every page load, and we are going to box and ship the dead kittens to the vB developers children.
So, I've done some optimizing on MySQL and on xcache with the goal of using more memory which is fast and reading/writing to disk less, which is slow.
Xcache is now set up to use WAY more ram, as is mysql and the innodb backend
I also re-enabled mcrypt support for php (though I'm not sure that vB actually uses it for anything, but Apache was throwing a fit). System loads are MUCH better now, and the page SEEMS FASTER to me.
anyone that knows how to use ping (linux or windows), please ping www.bladeforums.com, and post the output along with your subjective opinion "bladeforums is fast!" "meh it's ok" or "I gutted a kitten out of frustration waiting for this thing to load". If there still seems to be a problem for low ping users, I'll readdress this.

Thanks, and we're trying to save the kittens!
 
What you need to do is null rake the ip stack and create a visual basic interface to triangulate the ip-addresses. If you don't know how, we have people for this.
 
Pretty fast, nothing to complain about here.

Pingbladeforums.jpg
 
Here you go:

As for perceived speed at my end, it still seems a little sluggish, but not real bad. BUT, lots of variables in play (like my sometimes-flaky wireless internet, and a new browser version). Don't know if I can blame it all on BF's upgraded software yet. ;)
 
Last edited:
Kittens are essential to the health and well being of Bladeforums. Keep up the good work sir.
 
ndeezl said:
Kittens are essential to the health and well being of Bladeforums. Keep up the good work sir.
Click to expand...

Agreed! I lack the expertise to provide helpful information, but do appreciate your (and others') efforts. Thanks!

... I also have added "null rake the ip stack" to my colloquial lexicon, although I have no idea what it means. I like to think it's Pirate Speak, aye?

;-)

~ P.
 
sevenout@7OUT:~$ ping www.bladeforums.com
PING bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=1 ttl=52 time=55.6 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=2 ttl=52 time=48.0 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=3 ttl=52 time=53.4 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=4 ttl=52 time=41.9 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=5 ttl=52 time=43.2 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=6 ttl=52 time=48.1 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=7 ttl=52 time=49.6 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=8 ttl=52 time=42.3 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=9 ttl=52 time=45.7 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=10 ttl=52 time=41.2 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=11 ttl=52 time=42.4 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=12 ttl=52 time=48.7 ms
64 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=13 ttl=52 time=41.6 ms
 
My pinging showed TTL:53 and times between 175 and 185ms at a file size of 32 bytes.

That's not too fast, but then I'm from Germany and your servers are most likely located in the USA...

Best,
Murphys Law.


edit: le copy paste from terminal:

PING bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3) 32(60) bytes of data.
40 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=1 ttl=53 time=176 ms
40 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=2 ttl=53 time=183 ms
40 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=3 ttl=53 time=180 ms
40 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=4 ttl=53 time=177 ms
40 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=5 ttl=53 time=184 ms
40 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=6 ttl=53 time=188 ms
40 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=7 ttl=53 time=177 ms
40 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=8 ttl=53 time=182 ms
40 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=9 ttl=53 time=177 ms
40 bytes from www.bladeforums.com (199.231.142.3): icmp_req=10 ttl=53 time=181 ms
 
RUNIT said:
Ping-ing is not my thing but I do have a kitty if that would help.
Click to expand...

There's at least four yowling around my house every night for a few days now, I will happily send them in for testing. :)

that, and the two dogs across the street that cant stop yelping all night every night when anything moves, ending them would be a joy. :p
 
Pinging bladeforums.com [199.231.142.3] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=47
Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=47
Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=47
Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 199.231.142.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 53ms, Maximum = 84ms, Average = 62ms

edit: No noticeable difference on my end.
 
You can mail the dead kittens to my lib-tard brother and label them as "tire traction control parts".....that way the techies can do a good turn and I can have a big smile for a few days....
 
Ping statistics for 199.231.142.3:
Packets sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round-trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 77ms, Maximum = 82 ms, Average 79 ms

Load times are still a bit sluggish, but I've seen much worse in the past.
 
Pinging bladeforums.com [199.231.142.3] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=369ms TTL=50
Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=688ms TTL=50
Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=707ms TTL=50
Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=581ms TTL=50

Ping statistics for 199.231.142.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 369ms, Maximum = 707ms, Average = 586ms

The page loading speed seems about normal again.
 
>ping 199.231.142.3

Pinging 199.231.142.3 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=48
Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=48
Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=48
Reply from 199.231.142.3: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=48

Ping statistics for 199.231.142.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 32ms, Maximum = 47ms, Average = 36ms
 
So...Ping times are all great and such, but only tell you about your connection to the physical (or virtual) server, and don't tell you jack about the page load times, but they will drop if you are getting a denial of service or an overloaded server. You'd be better off using Firebug or Chromes Net Panel, or maybe even a stopwatch?
It seems pretty fast to me, but I still have issues with Chromes "back" button on here more than other websites. Weird...
 
35 years developing software and anytime I use a null rake in the Fall I do not seem to gather too many leaves.
 
Did you try making a GUI (thats pronounced gooey) in visual basic? Also I hear it helps if you have two people use the same keyboard at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top