Well, there's no ads on the forum anyway (other than ad at top for PA stuff) but certainly on the mainsite.
Tofystedeth on
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited April 2011
Even if you are no longer admin, I hope you and your hats stick around to enjoy our server-busy-free, vanilla future. You put a lot of work into this stuff, and I wish you the best wherever you go.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
RamiusJoined: July 19, 2000Administrator, ClubPAadmin
edited April 2011
I've implemented a tweak to hopefully subdue the "server too busy" errors a bit. There is still a good chance this fix will not eliminate them entirely. Please report if you get any anomalous new error messages, and feel free to let me know if you feel the "server too busy" messages are improved.
Definitely somewhat improved though I just got one. The error message popups seem to be a different window style. Though I only saw those while you were working on it. They may be back to normal now, unless that was in fact part of the fix.
Tofystedeth on
0
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
I had a "server too busy" message about a minute ago.
RamiusJoined: July 19, 2000Administrator, ClubPAadmin
edited April 2011
knowing exactly when they occur doesn't help me much since 1) it is anecdotal evidence at best and 2) I don't have any previous data to compare it to. If you have been on the forums a lot over the last 3 days and you feel you are now getting them in general LESS, that would be nice to know.
I can tell by the server statistics that we are now distributing the load more evenly among the remaining servers so I think that SHOULD be helpful - but the degree to which it helps is probably a matter of perception - it could be anywhere between barely perceptible to quite noticeable of an improvement.
I've been on the forums a lot all week (quiet week at work), and it's definitely improved. From every second or third navigation not working, to once every ten or twenty. This is in roughly the same timeframe every day, so unless today is just quieter than the start of the week, you've definitely made an improvement.
AnteCantelope on
0
RamiusJoined: July 19, 2000Administrator, ClubPAadmin
edited April 2011
Another cost cutting measure in the interest of performance:
I've disabled thread previews. That was the feature where you could hover your mouse over a thread title and it would show you the first 150 characters of the first post.
I've noticed it is quite a bit better, too. It was almost so bad I couldn't read a single page of a thread and click to the next without an error before. Now I'm almost back to normal.
Yeah Im curious what measures worked to improve things. I was coming into say that I hadn't gotten a message all day, but ironically reading this thread I got my first one. Which is a night and day improvement from before where the forum was all but unusable.
Compared to how things were going the last week, whatever Ramius did the forum has been cruising ever since. What was it that you did, Ramius?
I think your sample size is somewhat limited. It's probably only 'working' when you go and do anything. I've been getting plenty of busy messages since yesterday.
About 50% of the time on a click on a forum link and 95% of the time if the previous link resulted in a 'Too busy' error.
to
About 25% of the time on a click on a forum link, and 80% of the time if the previous link resulted in a 'Too busy' error
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
RamiusJoined: July 19, 2000Administrator, ClubPAadmin
edited April 2011
ah, this might be worth mentioning:
When the server decides it is too busy, it basically goes to sleep for 60 seconds so things can cool down. So if you hit a link and get the "too busy" message, everyone else is getting that message at the same time and will be for up to 60 more seconds. So that is why you see it so often "if the previous link resulted in a 'too busy'". The only time that wouldn't be the case is if you happened to come in 58 or 59 seconds into a cool-down period so your next click happens just as the server is recovering.
Any way to tell the forum to arbitrarily slow down and only process so many requests in a given timeframe? Requests would take longer, but 3-4 seconds per page is preferable to refreshing.
When the server decides it is too busy, it basically goes to sleep for 60 seconds so things can cool down. So if you hit a link and get the "too busy" message, everyone else is getting that message at the same time and will be for up to 60 more seconds. So that is why you see it so often "if the previous link resulted in a 'too busy'". The only time that wouldn't be the case is if you happened to come in 58 or 59 seconds into a cool-down period so your next click happens just as the server is recovering.
Ooh, good to know. This might be announcement-worthy, actually...
Overall, it seems substantially better than before. Whereas earlier this week I would have Forum Too Busy for long and frequent spans, now they happen far less frequently, and last for a much shorter time.
Overall, it seems substantially better than before. Whereas earlier this week I would have Forum Too Busy for long and frequent spans, now they happen far less frequently, and last for a much shorter time.
It was basically not worth trying to forum between 11am-8pm eastern times two weeks ago.
Now it seems that errors are mainly between 12-4 on weekdays and basically never on weekends.
While I typically view/participate in the forums more heavily while at work, I have noticed an anecdotal reduction in the server being busy messages across random/assorted times. I imagine monday (with the usual work/school schedule putting people in their regular routine) will be a good test of how the fix holds up to peak times? Err... as a completely blind guess that is.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
When the server decides it is too busy, it basically goes to sleep for 60 seconds so things can cool down. So if you hit a link and get the "too busy" message, everyone else is getting that message at the same time and will be for up to 60 more seconds. So that is why you see it so often "if the previous link resulted in a 'too busy'". The only time that wouldn't be the case is if you happened to come in 58 or 59 seconds into a cool-down period so your next click happens just as the server is recovering.
Today I have had several server timeouts (for lack of a better description..?) while submitting posts. Clicking "submit" causes the browser to stall, but opening a new window confirms that the post was completed. The original window will sometimes refresh directly to the "you need to wait 30 seconds between replies" page.
This has happened from two different computers / connections (home & work).
Posts
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I can tell by the server statistics that we are now distributing the load more evenly among the remaining servers so I think that SHOULD be helpful - but the degree to which it helps is probably a matter of perception - it could be anywhere between barely perceptible to quite noticeable of an improvement.
I've had.. 3 in the last uhhh 2 hours?
And before I was getting one every five minutes
And another at 9:56 PM ET
I'm assuming people told other people Ramius fixed it and now the server is getting stressed again.
Edit - Ironically I got one as I was posting this.
Twitter
I've disabled thread previews. That was the feature where you could hover your mouse over a thread title and it would show you the first 150 characters of the first post.
Thread previews seems like a small price to pay.
Edit: Actually, not sure if I've seen any today?
Edit2: Oh there's one! Still, went about a half hour without seeing any so that's still way better.
I think your sample size is somewhat limited. It's probably only 'working' when you go and do anything. I've been getting plenty of busy messages since yesterday.
...I say right before I get a Server too Busy message trying to post this.
Steam
About 50% of the time on a click on a forum link and 95% of the time if the previous link resulted in a 'Too busy' error.
to
About 25% of the time on a click on a forum link, and 80% of the time if the previous link resulted in a 'Too busy' error
When the server decides it is too busy, it basically goes to sleep for 60 seconds so things can cool down. So if you hit a link and get the "too busy" message, everyone else is getting that message at the same time and will be for up to 60 more seconds. So that is why you see it so often "if the previous link resulted in a 'too busy'". The only time that wouldn't be the case is if you happened to come in 58 or 59 seconds into a cool-down period so your next click happens just as the server is recovering.
Ooh, good to know. This might be announcement-worthy, actually...
It was basically not worth trying to forum between 11am-8pm eastern times two weeks ago.
Now it seems that errors are mainly between 12-4 on weekdays and basically never on weekends.
Decent enough fix for me.
Even computers need naptime.
BUT
Today I have had several server timeouts (for lack of a better description..?) while submitting posts. Clicking "submit" causes the browser to stall, but opening a new window confirms that the post was completed. The original window will sometimes refresh directly to the "you need to wait 30 seconds between replies" page.
This has happened from two different computers / connections (home & work).