| Author |
Topic: New Forum Server |
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 20 Mar 2009 4:21 pm |
|
I spent the better part of the day upgrading the forum to a new Mac XServe computer. This has 10 GB of RAM (compared to 2 GB on the old box) and a bunch of other hot specs that I didn't memorize. Seems to be a bit faster here in the room. 
_________________
-𝕓𝕆𝕓- (admin) - Robert P. Lee - Recordings - Breathe - D6th - Video |
|
|
|
Jon Light (deceased)
From:
Saugerties, NY
|
Posted 20 Mar 2009 4:39 pm
|
|
| Nice job, b0b. Seems to be running crisply. Faster than I've seen it in a long while. |
|
|
|
Bent Romnes
From:
London,Ontario, Canada
|
Posted 20 Mar 2009 4:41 pm
|
|
| b0b, it's definitely faster..all the way to London, Ontario Canada |
|
|
|
Jeff Hyman
From:
West Virginia, USA
|
Posted 20 Mar 2009 5:07 pm
|
|
b0b,
09:00pm EST seems much faster. What window of time [EST] is the traffic at its peak level? I'd like to give it a whirl and report back to you. It's not a matter of if its faster, but by how much. Also.. pretty impressive how quickly you changed over to the new hardware. What was the most difficult part of the whole process (other then the cost <g>) ? Same Ver/Rel of the OS? |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 20 Mar 2009 5:39 pm
|
|
...a lot faster now.  |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 20 Mar 2009 7:28 pm
|
|
It's OS X Server, so it's made from the ground up for this kind of work. There's a real nice service control panel that presents options and writes the config files for you. I really like that.
The hardest part technically was getting MySQL running properly. I kept doing something wrong. It took me 3 tries to restore the Forum database correctly. Just stupid errors on my part. I don't work with databases a whole lot.
The actual hardest part was holding my breath for 3 hours, praying that I wasn't forgetting anything. Still not quite sure.
_________________
-𝕓𝕆𝕓- (admin) - Robert P. Lee - Recordings - Breathe - D6th - Video |
|
|
|
Wiz Feinberg
From:
Mid-Michigan, USA
|
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 20 Mar 2009 8:25 pm
|
|
It waited until I got home to do it, too!   |
|
|
|
Bo Borland
From:
South Jersey -
|
Posted 20 Mar 2009 11:38 pm
|
|
| b0b. it's running like a Ferrari. Screaming fast! Well done! |
|
|
|
Michael Dene
From:
Gippsland,Victoria, Australia
|
Posted 21 Mar 2009 12:02 am
|
|
At the risk of getting to technical for you, ....
WOW!!!!!
Even my little laptop is impressed!!! |
|
|
|
Andy Sandoval
From:
Bakersfield, California, USA
|
Posted 21 Mar 2009 12:36 am
|
|
So far so good Bob. Like turnin pages in a book.  |
|
|
|
Papa Joe Pollick
From:
Swanton, Ohio
|
Posted 21 Mar 2009 4:15 am
|
|
| Ya dun gud boss.. |
|
|
|
Rob Segal
From:
New York NY
|
Posted 21 Mar 2009 7:09 am new server
|
|
....now that's what i'm talkin' about!!!!!
rob in NYC |
|
|
|
Cal Sharp
From:
the farm in Kornfield Kounty, TN
|
|
|
|
Wiz Feinberg
From:
Mid-Michigan, USA
|
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 22 Mar 2009 2:06 am
|
|
So far it seems to be doing it's job.
I hope this solves the problems.
Thanks b0b |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 22 Mar 2009 10:40 am
|
|
It still won't compress my 8MP photos taken with my Nikon SLR. I have to go into Paint and reduce them by 80% before they will post.  |
|
|
|
Wiz Feinberg
From:
Mid-Michigan, USA
|
Posted 22 Mar 2009 11:09 am
|
|
| Alan Brookes wrote: |
| It still won't compress my 8MP photos taken with my Nikon SLR. I have to go into Paint and reduce them by 80% before they will post. :( |
As well you should! Those files are multi-megabytes in size!
_________________
"Wiz" Feinberg, Moderator SGF Computers Forum
Security Consultant
Twitter: @Wizcrafts
Main web pages: Wiztunes Steel Guitar website | Wiz's Security Blog | My Webmaster Services | Wiz's Security Blog |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 22 Mar 2009 12:06 pm
|
|
8 megapixels requires 24 MB of RAM at 3 bytes per pixel to hold the uncompressed source image for processing, plus 1.25 MB to hold the output image, plus whatever scratch buffers the code requires. Actually, some image algorithms use 4 bytes per pixel for speed.
The server has 10 GB of RAM and we allow a maximum of 500 user processes. That's 20 MB of RAM per user process.
Why don't you just set your camera to a lower resolution?
_________________
-𝕓𝕆𝕓- (admin) - Robert P. Lee - Recordings - Breathe - D6th - Video |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 22 Mar 2009 5:37 pm
|
|
| Wiz Feinberg wrote: |
| ...As well you should! Those files are multi-megabytes in size! |
I wasn't thinking of them being stored on the database uncompressed, I was thinking that the process of posting would compress them.
| b0b wrote: |
| ...Why don't you just set your camera to a lower resolution? |
I would if I were just taking the pictures for circulation on the internet. I'd rather take them at the maximum resolution and then copy them as needed.
My Dad had a photographic business, and I used to help him in his darkroom, and go out to weddings to take additional photos. While he was taking the regular group photos I would stand back and take unposed shots with a telephoto lens. I've also been taking stereoscopic (3D) photos for years. Film is expensive, and I think my Dad's idea of heaven would have been to be able to take as many photos as he liked at virtually no cost. Unfortunately he didn't live to see it. I'm spoilt nowadays, and I just take hundreds of photos.  |
|
|
|
Jim Smith
From:
Midlothian, TX, USA
|
Posted 24 Mar 2009 7:06 pm
|
|
Is the new server really running faster for everyone else? If anything, it seems slower than before to me. For example, it just took 30 seconds to open this reply window, and clicking on a topic or a new page of a topic takes up to a couple minutes.
I'm on RoadRunner cable Internet with 6Mbps service. This forum is now the slowest of the three or four other forums that I visit regularly. |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 24 Mar 2009 7:33 pm
|
|
| Alan Brookes wrote: |
| Wiz Feinberg wrote: |
| ...As well you should! Those files are multi-megabytes in size! |
I wasn't thinking of them being stored on the database uncompressed, I was thinking that the process of posting would compress them. |
They have to be decompressed to their full size in RAM to be resized and recompressed.
Jim, maybe you're synchronizing your online time with Alan's uploads.  Seriously, the new server is much faster, but it's still on a T1 line (1.544 Mbps) out here in rural California. Until AT&T lowers their rates significantly, I can't do much about that.
_________________
-𝕓𝕆𝕓- (admin) - Robert P. Lee - Recordings - Breathe - D6th - Video |
|
|
|
Jim Smith
From:
Midlothian, TX, USA
|
Posted 24 Mar 2009 7:47 pm
|
|
| b0b wrote: |
| Jim, maybe you're synchronizing your online time with Alan's uploads. Seriously, the new server is much faster, but it's still on a T1 line (1.544 Mbps) out here in rural California. Until AT&T lowers their rates significantly, I can't do much about that. |
b0b, my point was that before the upgrade, this was one of the fastest forums I visit. Now it's the slowest. If they all acted the same, I could blame it on my connection. Both ping and tracert show about 70-100ms round trip times, which seems acceptable. |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 24 Mar 2009 7:47 pm
|
|
Jim, open a command window and type "ping bb.steelguitarforum.com". From my house, 2 miles from the server and on a different provider, I get times in 30 ms to 40 ms range. What sort of times do you see?
_________________
-𝕓𝕆𝕓- (admin) - Robert P. Lee - Recordings - Breathe - D6th - Video |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 24 Mar 2009 7:49 pm
|
|
| We crossed paths in our replies. I'm seeing an almost instant "Post a Reply" page, and topics load in a few seconds. I don't think that the server's the problem. |
|
|
|
