how to poxy fule

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

ban someone = poxy fuled for a few minutes?

― I'm Hi, Jared Fogle (ex machina), Monday, 1 August 2005 02:19 (twenty years ago)

ILX is really great. The servers are very robust. The response times are amazing.

― Stormy Davis (diamond), Monday, 1 August 2005 03:08 (twenty years ago)

The administrators have a full understanding of all the properties of MySQL and the performance consequences thereof.

― I'm Hi, Jared Fogle (ex machina), Monday, 1 August 2005 03:59 (twenty years ago)

its free and people invest their time and resources on it in the hope that others will snipe

― charltonlido (gareth), Monday, 1 August 2005 04:02 (twenty years ago)

A++++ Server! Would do HTTP with again.

― I'm Hi, Jared Fogle (ex machina), Monday, 1 August 2005 04:08 (twenty years ago)

Stormy is such a loveable scamp, I hope he keeps posting forever.

― Leon C. (Ex Leon), Monday, 1 August 2005 12:33 (twenty years ago)

would you prefer http://www.phpbb.com/ ??

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 1 August 2005 13:26 (twenty years ago)

noooooooooooooo

― I'm Hi, Jared Fogle (ex machina), Monday, 1 August 2005 14:41 (twenty years ago)

some combo of this and that would suit me.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Monday, 1 August 2005 15:52 (twenty years ago)

hey, we could be using the UBB. imagine ilx rife with yellow smileys.

― Kim (Kim), Monday, 1 August 2005 16:09 (twenty years ago)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 August 2005 16:15 (twenty years ago)

There is no wub here.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Monday, 1 August 2005 16:16 (twenty years ago)

where is the wub?

― Kim (Kim), Monday, 1 August 2005 16:18 (twenty years ago)

What's wub got to do with it?

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Monday, 1 August 2005 16:46 (twenty years ago)

Oh whats wub got to do, got to do with it
What`s wub but a second hand emoticon
What`s wub got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a link when a link can be broken

Tina was ahead of her time.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Monday, 1 August 2005 16:58 (twenty years ago)

omg you actually posted it! i'd now protect my beanbag if i were you.

― Kim (Kim), Monday, 1 August 2005 17:08 (twenty years ago)

Do you need special sports equipment for that?

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Monday, 1 August 2005 17:24 (twenty years ago)

http://www.jigsawlounge.co.uk/kungfu/comic/beanbag.gif

― Kim (Kim), Monday, 1 August 2005 17:34 (twenty years ago)

ILX is really great. The servers are very robust. The response times are amazing.
-- Stormy Davis (electrifyingmoj...), August 1st, 2005 11:08 PM. (diamond) (later) (link)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stormy is such a loveable scamp, I hope he keeps posting forever.
-- Leon C. (nicole.kessle...), August 1st, 2005 8:33 AM. (Ex Leon) (later) (link)

Am I on the right message board?

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 1 August 2005 20:46 (twenty years ago)

YES YOU ARE NOT

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 1 August 2005 21:00 (twenty years ago)

Wacky fun.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 1 August 2005 21:42 (twenty years ago)

won't get fuled again

― ghetty green (eman), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 02:03 (twenty years ago)

I wish I had thought of that.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 02:05 (twenty years ago)

You will, Rufus, you will. < / John Cleese as Whistler >

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 08:29 (twenty years ago)

you know you're a, cute little heartbreaker....POXY

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 09:41 (twenty years ago)

Poxy Roller? good god.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 12:17 (twenty years ago)

one year passes...

hanging on asking new questions

― UART variations (ex machina), Friday, 26 January 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

hanging on replying as well sometimes

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 26 January 2007 19:18 (eighteen years ago)

(xp) go outside, baldy

― cousin larry bundgee (bundgee), Friday, 26 January 2007 19:26 (eighteen years ago)

Yeh, we're just beginning to hit up against the database server's max connections. There's enough room to raise that ceiling a bit. I'll do it tomorrow.

― stet (stet), Friday, 26 January 2007 19:36 (eighteen years ago)

Are you using persistent connections?

― UART variations (ex machina), Friday, 26 January 2007 22:02 (eighteen years ago)

No, although there are all sorts of things lurking in this code, so I can't be certain. I think it's more a problem of long-running queries piling up. People were using statscock a lot last week, and it's inefficient as hell, that's one thing.

Also the traffic from googlers is way, way up from previous weeks -- more than 60% now -- and it doesn't help that they get every message of thousand-post threads by default.

I had kept the connection limit relatively middling -- it's at 100 -- as I wanted to work out how best to balance the SQL/Apache/Tomcat trio proportionately. I can open it up a fair chunk.

None of these are worries under the new code. Am meeting Keith next week to talk about a migration plan. And get drunk.

― stet (stet), Friday, 26 January 2007 23:10 (eighteen years ago)

guess paper traffic

― am0n (am0n), Saturday, 27 January 2007 07:21 (eighteen years ago)

How many unique visitors are we getting a day now?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 27 January 2007 19:30 (eighteen years ago)

Around 25,000. It's still a bit shy of where we were last October, but it's moving up steadily.

― stet (stet), Saturday, 27 January 2007 21:14 (eighteen years ago)

Stuff the migration plan, let's just get pissed.

― KeefW (kmw), Sunday, 28 January 2007 17:09 (eighteen years ago)

or drunk, depending on your nationality.

― KeefW (kmw), Sunday, 28 January 2007 17:11 (eighteen years ago)

Though, it's quite worrying if 60% of the traffic is from Googlers...Obviously no caching approach will deal with this.

― KeefW (kmw), Sunday, 28 January 2007 17:22 (eighteen years ago)

NOFOLLOW

― the kwisatz bacharach (sanskrit), Sunday, 28 January 2007 23:01 (eighteen years ago)

Though, it's quite worrying if 60% of the traffic is from Googlers...Obviously no caching approach will deal with this.

Not really a big deal, as the bulk of the site traffic will be cached already. Googlers will no doubt be pulling up many of the same threads, so caching will be in force there also.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 29 January 2007 04:11 (eighteen years ago)

rel="nocredibility"

― am0n (am0n), Monday, 29 January 2007 04:49 (eighteen years ago)

Andrew,

Don't agree with that. It might be true if we had enough memory to cache the entire database, but we're a long, long way off of that.

Caching is based on what we know about what people are currently looking at, so basically what's in new answers on all the boards. People googling are no more likely to get something that is in the new answers than anything else.

― KeefW (kmw), Monday, 29 January 2007 09:01 (eighteen years ago)

Why not use a static html cache for logged out users? They all get the same render.

― UART variations (ex machina), Monday, 29 January 2007 16:05 (eighteen years ago)

READ THE LAST POST ON THE THREAD BEFORE TYPING MUCH, JON?

― TOMBO7 (TOMBOT), Monday, 29 January 2007 16:25 (eighteen years ago)

I had forgotten all about Mr BeanBag.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Monday, 29 January 2007 18:08 (eighteen years ago)

YES. BUT I MEAN GENERATE A PERPETUAL STATIC HTML CACHE WHEN LOGGED OUT CLICKS A THREAD AND DELETE IT WHEN SOMETHING ACTS OF THE THREAD.

― UART variations (ex machina), Monday, 29 January 2007 18:11 (eighteen years ago)

^ That's a pretty good idea I reckon.

― Andrew (enneff), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 03:31 (eighteen years ago)

Don't agree with that. It might be true if we had enough memory to cache the entire database, but we're a long, long way off of that.

I'd have to see what proportion of threads are being hit. My guess is that only a small number of the threads in the database are actually being hit each day.

― Andrew (enneff), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 03:32 (eighteen years ago)

Also, I do not advise using an html cache for users

― UART variations (ex machina), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 17:53 (eighteen years ago)

yeah its not a bad idea -- shld also only be done for threads where last answer was something like > 1 month ago.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 19:46 (eighteen years ago)

ehhh, let's say an hour ago -- i imagine the new answers page gets a fair amount of logged out traffic

― UART variations (ex machina), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

Anything on new answers isn't going to be a problem, since it'll be cached by definition.

― stet; (stet), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 20:54 (eighteen years ago)

Aha! What's the cache mechanism

― UART variations (ex machina), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 22:00 (eighteen years ago)

It's all here:

http://conversationboard.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/ILX/WEB-INF/src/com/conversationboard/cache/

I'm guessing that people find pages via google when they type things like say 'thin lizzy' into google and get an ILX thread back, so chances are it won't be cached. All stuff that's been recently accessed/updated will be cached.

A static cache seems like a perfectly possible approach, though it's a bunch of work, including the keeping it up-to-date that I don't have time to do now.

― KeefW (kmw), Tuesday, 30 January 2007 23:14 (eighteen years ago)

This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.