tooo busy?

[Skip Channel]

I have a habit of opening up several windows at the same time - often from the same site (I acquired this habit while on dialup). I see a load of threads/articles that interest me and let them all load in the background whilst reading the first one.

I'm guessing it's not such a good idea having multiple pages from the site loading at the same time so I'm going to fall out of this habit!

 

[RedDevil_UK]

I do the same

even with fast connections these days... i still cant wait.

old habits die hard

 

[2cvbloke]

I have multiple windows open, but they're for different sites/forums, I only usually have 1 window per forum, unless I'm having a bit of a PM'ing session...

As for the SQL requests, can't you limit what guests can see so that they don't create so many requests and save the requests for the members? Or is it because the server is a 486DX/2(66MHz)???

 

[rolfw]

The guests do not seem to affect the server load too greatly, it is only logged on members. We have trimmed pretty much all we can for the moment, so really all we can do is hang on. See http://www.satellites.co.uk/php-bin/forum/showthread.php?t=30340&highlight=server for the old server spec, we will be keeping this but migrating the main workload to the new server.

 

[2cvbloke]

The guests do not seem to affect the server load too greatly, it is only logged on members. We have trimmed pretty much all we can for the moment, so really all we can do is hang on. See http://www.satellites.co.uk/php-bin/forum/showthread.php?t=30340&highlight=server for the old server spec, we will be keeping this but migrating the main workload to the new server.

Ah well, it's just a case of waiting then, let's just hope all the trimming is enough to prevent server flop....

So is that the current server spec or a previous server?

I was just thinking back to the days when I was force-fed networking, would it not be possible to spread the workload over, say 4, decent equal-spec servers using Parallel Processing, or would it just be too much cost? I'm sure I managed to set this up once when I worked for a software company (but can't for the life of me remember how I did it...)...

 

[rolfw]

Sorry, by old I meant the current one, as i am now concentrating on the new one.

Yes you can run several in tandem, but two is about all we can afford at the moment. The new one will be high spec, with a super fast SCSI drive, twin processors, with 4 Gig of RAM, must say that Chris and I didn't expect to outgrow the server in just over a year though.

 

[2cvbloke]

Sorry, by old I meant the current one, as i am now concentrating on the new one.

Yes you can run several in tandem, but two is about all we can afford at the moment. The new one will be high spec, with a super fast SCSI drive, twin processors, with 4 Gig of RAM, must say that Chris and I didn't expect to outgrow the server in just over a year though.

Ah, ok....

Well, I'm sure sticking a couple of PC's in the mix could aid with database processing, it's just whether or not you can get them or not...

Do SCSI drves still exist??? I though SATA had overtaken them by now!!!
(By the way, you might want 2 (or more) RAID configured SCSI drives instead so you have a redundant drive for emergency backup (incase 1 drive fails) so you don't lose everything....)

 

[rolfw]

Yes SCSI drives are still the favourite for lightning fast server access apparently, they don't make them as big as SATA drives, but they don't need to be, they just need to be fast and I believe that the access bandwidth is bigger.

 

[2cvbloke]

Yes SCSI drives are still the favourite for lightning fast server access apparently, they don't make them as big as SATA drives, but they don't need to be, they just need to be fast and I believe that the access bandwidth is bigger.

Ah, personally I'd just build myself a server, tis cheaper that way....

 

[rolfw]

Because the server host is located in the US and we are buying from the US, we can probably buy it cheaper than we can build it here.

PS. Servers are backed up daily under the host's house keeping regime.

 

[2cvbloke]

Because the server host is located in the US and we are buying from the US, we can probably buy it cheaper than we can build it here.

PS. Servers are backed up daily under the host's house keeping regime.

So, you've never even seen your own server??? That's a bit of a worry, you never know what your hosts are storing on your server.....

That's Ok then...

 

[rolfw]

LOL, I sense a little paranoia here.

If you have access to and command of the server control panel, you are fully aware of what equipment you have and what sites are running on it. 99.9% of the people with dedicated servers have never seen their web server, as they are very seldom situated on their own trunk line, most being in remote locations with server hosts.

 

[2cvbloke]

LOL, I sense a little paranoia here.

If you have access to and command of the server control panel, you are fully aware of what equipment you have and what sites are running on it. 99.9% of the people with dedicated servers have never seen their web server, as they are very seldom situated on their own trunk line, most being in remote locations with server hosts.

Yep......

My old server used to sit behind my monitor, but NTL caught on and blocked my server from serving my website..... :mad:

 

[rolfw]

I'd thought of running my own web server for another site, but in the end, even though I have 2meg downline, I only have 256k upline, so once we reached 20 members, it would be stuffed. Current traffic for this site as of 21:15 is 1,544 Users Online (417 members and 1,127 guests)

 

[2cvbloke]

I'd thought of running my own web server for another site, but in the end, even though I have 2meg downline, I only have 256k upline, so once we reached 20 members, it would be stuffed. Current traffic for this site as of 21:15 is 1,544 Users Online (417 members and 1,127 guests)

I always thought that the average upstream was usually 1/4 of the downstream....
(so 2MB D/S would have a 512kMBU/S)

 

[rolfw]

No, take a look at most ADSL packages, upstream is 256k and RADSL even lower as upstream bandwidth is not required for the avearge user, not withstanding that, it is still way way too low anyway to support a forum of this size, it would not handle a fraction of the users.

 

[gameboy]

Can I suggest we may have overlooked the fundamental problem here?

Don't we just need more Mamsters?

 

[Topper]

Can I suggest we may have overlooked the fundamental problem here?
Don't we just need more Mamsters?

But GB do you realise how many members have come on board since the last incarnation of the mamsters..... will they use the archives to find out all about our friends or will you be answering all the questions

 

[gameboy]

They seem to have worked - the forum's going like a train this morning.

Good work Mamsters.

Happily answer any Mamster questions - you can PM me...

P.S. (I think Rolfw and Chris may have helped)

 

[Sir Bronking]

who's online: 209 members 0 guests

is that the reason?