Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Is lowendtalk.com itself hosted in a low end box? - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Is lowendtalk.com itself hosted in a low end box?

2

Comments

  • @SysAdmin said:
    Are you splitting your read / write queries?

    Yup, this is the main issue. Most people tries writing to all galera servers thus it becomes a dead lock

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • Indeed, most applications don't come out of the box with the ability to specify different read / write DB adapters. Vanilla included.

    I haven't bothered to alter the code to accomplish this task as its not required, the ultimate purpose of the infrastructure in place is to just keep the site online; however if you need that level of performance then splitting of the adapters is absolutely necessary for it to work appropriately.

  • SysAdmin said: Are you splitting your read / write queries?

    Indeed !

  • ReetusReetus Member

    @SysAdmin said:
    It runs on a cluster of 3 E3-1240 servers, of which it's load balanced between all three, plus two firewalls in an active / failover configuration.

    Seems overkill.

  • DillybobDillybob Member
    edited July 2015

    This site would run about 20x faster if someone actually spent time optimizing vanilla so it doesn't use 120 requests per fucking refresh. Also, loading JQUERY is pointless as everything this forum software does can be done in plain JS so easily. And what the hell is all this shit?

    Cached or not, it's way too much.

  • k0nslk0nsl Member

    The forum is really optimised poorly (to put it mildly):

    Thanked by 1Leechum
  • Yes. JS combine may come in handy

  • From what I'm seeing... People whine and bitch about a forum SHOULD function, yet don't do anything about it.

    Thanked by 1inthecloudblog
  • k0nslk0nsl Member

    And you "whine and bitch" about people wanting a better experience?

    @techhelper1 said:
    From what I'm seeing... People whine and bitch about a forum SHOULD function, yet don't do anything about it.

    Thanked by 1Leechum
  • @techhelper1 said:
    From what I'm seeing... People whine and bitch about a forum SHOULD function, yet don't do anything about it.

    Well, basically the site is fast itself, it's just it could be so much faster. Especially since this forum is so active, I would imagine it should tickle someone's balls to make it snappier / optimized :). I know It would mine.

  • Between the two screenshots all I can see is a lot of jQuery files being loaded. The rest is all CSS and JavaScript for the necessary forum function. Yes it's a lot of files but I'd rather it be organized then all bunched into one file.

  • techhelper1techhelper1 Member
    edited July 2015

    The thing is, what's the difference (in concept) between using a lot of jQuery files and Bootstrap JS files? It's still a lot of files to accomplish the same thing. You'd be surprised at how many bootstrap sites that are not optimized.

  • techhelper1techhelper1 Member
    edited July 2015

    @k0nsl said:
    And you "whine and bitch" about people wanting a better experience?

    By better experience you mean shave off a total of 10-50ms that you won't even notice?

  • k0nslk0nsl Member
    edited July 2015

    I'm sure it would be possible to shave off seconds. This thread takes almost seven seconds to load, cached.

    [EDIT]

    ...and that's with advertisements blocked (on my DNS side) + Ghostry enabled.

    @techhelper1 said:
    By better experience you mean shave off a total of 10-50ms that you won't even notice?

  • techhelper1techhelper1 Member
    edited July 2015

    It takes me about 4.5 seconds cached, although I have Verizon FiOS.

  • edited July 2015

    I have to say it's very snappy browsing for me even though I'm in latam. Good and speedy connections both on mobile and via wired or wifi.
    Wht takes ages and most likely they have more money to spare. Liquidweb connectivity is sheet to latam in my experience.

  • HBAndreiHBAndrei Member, Top Host, Host Rep

    Not sure what people are complaining about, it's almost an instant page load for me every time I browse LET, one of the fastest forums I've ever seen.

  • StevieStevie Member

    @SysAdmin
    As others have requested much information can you also list the following:

    • Employees Names
    • Employees Address
    • Employees SSN
    • The ips for the servers
    • The root passwords for the servers
    • CC paypal password

    JUST KIDDING! KNEE SLAP

    It really cool you discuss this information public, granted its not CIA level black op information but atleast your not vultr (IM KIDDING DONT BAN ME VULTR!)

  • I'm happy to look at things if they aren't running well, but it's just hard for me to see that given that it loads instantly for me no matter where I try from.

  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran

    Takes about 3 seconds to load this thread for me. Some of that I attribute to my slow wifi at home, though.

  • I usually loads pretty fast here in the boonies. However, there are sporadic blackouts where I have to wait a couple of seconds or more. The worst is the Cloudflare waits. I'm thinking that dumping Cloudflare might speed things up.

  • The optimization would indeed reduce load. But what people aren't thinking of is man hours. Optimization can cause extensive workloads and possibly breaking the forums,

    As a CSE-CE I had to build an OS and once it's built to optimize it and add features or make optimization work you can break tons of things and it would take man man hours and lOC later if you had to rebuild other parts to make a certain feature more optimized or add a feature.

    The forum works and it works now. The man hours may not be worth it to optimize more,

  • @jbiloh said:
    Takes about 3 seconds to load this thread for me. Some of that I attribute to my slow wifi at home, though.

    Your also an admitted windows user with an opera browser habit.

    Thanked by 1DeletedUser
  • k0nslk0nsl Member

    What browser are you using, Mr. Biloh? Could you share a screenshot of what the network output (Chrome or Firefox) looks like?

    In Firefox (not logged in) with only ABP + custom blocklist @ DNS level:

    In Chrome, when logged in, it takes 6~7 seconds before the page is fully loaded. I haven't tried being logged in on Firefox to perform the same test. Strange, either way..

    @jbiloh said:
    Takes about 3 seconds to load this thread for me. Some of that I attribute to my slow wifi at home, though.

  • @k0nsl said:
    In Chrome, when logged in, it takes 6~7 seconds before the page is fully loaded.

    I don't have that problem with Chrome, have you tried disabling all plug-ins?

    Thanked by 1k0nsl
  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran

    I use the latest Opera built on Chromium.

    Thanked by 1k0nsl
  • It takes me one second to load this page

  • k0nslk0nsl Member
    edited July 2015

    Slight improvement. I disabled everything except APB + Ghostry.

    [EDIT]

    No, wait, it is more or less the same with ALL plugins disabled.

    @Microlinux said:
    I don't have that problem with Chrome, have you tried disabling all plug-ins?

  • Opera always reminds me of this... (from WebKit memes)

  • @k0nsl said:
    No, wait, it is more or less the same with ALL plugins disabled.

    That's strange.

    I will say Chrome does seem to be a tad inconsistent performance-wise these days. SSL in particular is kind of a yo-yo for me.

Sign In or Register to comment.