Has this site been slow recently?

[Handruin]

I haven't heard any complaints, but I've noticed that this site has been much slower then in the past. The page generation times listed at the bottom of the page have gone from 0.1-second generation to roughly 0.4-10 second generation. I thought it was my ISP, but it is just as slow from work where the Internet connection for exceeds my home connection.

I strongly believe this site has moved servers because I complained about the amount of down time. I think since the change, the site has been noticeably slower. I have not seen a dramatic increase of StorageForum usage so I don't think this is related to the issue.

I've been watching the usage of this shared host and the CPU is regularly up to 60-80%. I also see numerous CGI calls from other users when I run "top" from my SSH2 session.

If everyone can take a few seconds and vote, I'd like to get a overall picture of the performance.

Thanks for the help,

Doug

 

[CougTek]

I've been unable to access the site for a good part of the afternoon and the evening. So far for the supposed better uptime your provider told you about But as it's free, we can't complain much. One home accessible 90% of the time is still better than no home at all.

 

[Pradeep]

Does seem rather slow to me, even on dial-up. Certainly that new snap that existed when the site was first created is long gone. 80% sounds like pretty high utilisation for a web server.

 

[Pradeep]

If they had moved you onto another server, wouldn't they have had to give you updated login details?

 

[Buck]

I'd like to vote again and point out that the speed seems to be inconsistent. Earlier, the pages loaded unbelievably slow, then the site was not available. Now the site is back, and the pages seem decent for a Broadband connection. But, considering the micro amount of users visiting, I would expect, much faster speeds. Is that unrealistic?

BR

 

[Handruin]

I'd like to vote again and point out that the speed seems to be inconsistent. Earlier, the pages loaded unbelievably slow, then the site was not available. Now the site is back, and the pages seem decent for a Broadband connection. But, considering the micro amount of users visiting, I would expect, much faster speeds. Is that unrealistic?

BR

This is exactly what I've been seeing. At times the page is fine, but generally there has been a massive slowdown. The amount of people in this community do not cause a ton of traffic. he most I've seen is 600 MB worth of traffic in a month. Currently the bandwidth usage meter is broken so I have no idea what this site has been using for bandwidth. (I think it's broken because we moved servers. The built in SSH terminal window hasn't been working for the past week either. Fortunately I was able to download a SSH2 terminal and I was allowed to connect outside their usual method.

I've looked at pair.net for web hosting, but the cheapest plan to run this site would be $250 per month. I know your going to say that can't be, but they limit the size of the MySQL DB to 20MB on all their shared host plans. It won't be long before we are there, so pair is not affordable for me. In order to have a space for a larger DB, we would need a dedicated server. Without advertisements, this would not be possible.

 

[Buck]

I wish I knew how to help, but I don't. James would be much better qualified to help solve this problem (probably everyone else is better qualified then me).

BR

 

[CougTek]

I wish I knew how to help, but I don't. James would be much better qualified to help solve this problem (probably everyone else is better qualified then me).

Woe, whoew champion! I'M A LOT LESS QUALIFIED THAN YOU ARE to solve this problem. Don't give yourself titles you don't deserve.

 

[Buck]

I wish I knew how to help, but I don't. James would be much better qualified to help solve this problem (probably everyone else is better qualified then me).

Woe, whoew champion! I'M A LOT LESS QUALIFIED THAN YOU ARE to solve this problem. Don't give yourself titles you don't deserve.

Thanks Coug.

 

[Pradeep]

I've looked at pair.net for web hosting, but the cheapest plan to run this site would be $250 per month. I know your going to say that can't be, but they limit the size of the MySQL DB to 20MB on all their shared host plans. It won't be long before we are there, so pair is not affordable for me. In order to have a space for a larger DB, we would need a dedicated server. Without advertisements, this would not be possible.

I notice they limit you to 5 databases of 20MB each on the shared plans. Is it possible to use multiple DB's to circumvent the 20MB limit?

 

[Handruin]

I've looked at pair.net for web hosting, but the cheapest plan to run this site would be $250 per month. I know your going to say that can't be, but they limit the size of the MySQL DB to 20MB on all their shared host plans. It won't be long before we are there, so pair is not affordable for me. In order to have a space for a larger DB, we would need a dedicated server. Without advertisements, this would not be possible.

I notice they limit you to 5 databases of 20MB each on the shared plans. Is it possible to use multiple DB's to circumvent the 20MB limit?

With the current version of phpBB2 it is not possible. I would also think of this as a bad way to manage a forum. I'm not sure if it would even work...how would the forum know when to span to a new database once one of them is full?

I'm surprised they set a limit to 20MB..it makes it pointless. If you read further into their contract they also limit the content, which can be stored in the DB. Xoops (the main page) would not be allowed because it stores some HTML in the database, something which pair defines as unacceptable (if I read it correctly).

 

[Pradeep]

Yeah they do have some stringent limits on the shared plans. But I guess the upside is that stability and availability is very good, especially compared to some hosting services I've seen (nice and cheap, but terrible performance).

 

[CougTek]

Another slowdown report. Although the speed is fine now, the web site was dead slow just ten minutes ago around 16:12.

 

[timwhit]

Man this server is really screwed up....Site is about half alive right now. Only about 1/4 of my pings are working. Took 20 minutes to get to this point. No I didn't sit here and watch it load.

I have decided that burst sucks a lot. Maybe a new provider is in order?

Or at least complain a lot to burst, maybe they will listen and fix whatever recurring problem they are having.

 

[Handruin]

It went down while I was typing a post again, this is the second time it's done that to me. :evil: :evil: I think we may need to change hosting providers. i was looking at www.voxtreme.com as they offer what we need, and a fair price.

 

[Buck]

It went down while I was typing a post again, this is the second time it's done that to me. :evil: :evil: I think we may need to change hosting providers. i was looking at www.voxtreme.com as they offer what we need, and a fair price.

Wow, those prices and features are very attractive. Has anyone had experience with this company?

BR

 

[Buck]

The site has been sporatically available so far today.

BR

 

[Pradeep]

Looks like voxtreme is hosted by this company.

http://www.vdi.net/network_information.html

 

[Handruin]

They have 2 datacenters, VDI and NAC. I posted a question in their forum (they fully support phpBB2 BTW) and they said I would be at their NAC because I'm in the US.

The admin on their forum has mention "NAC has DS3s to loads of providers, such as Williams, Globix, Genuity, Ardent, Cogent, Broadwing, TimeWarner, etc. etc." VDI is working on their DOS issue, and will be adding an OC12 line in soon.

I haven't fully decided what to do, but I guess I can take a chance with voxtreme and see where it goes from there.

 

[James]

How about http://www.apollohosting.com ? They seem pretty good value.

Or have a look through http://www.webhostingratings.com and see what you think.

 

[Groltz]

Has this site become slower in the past 30 days?

Very much so.

Of course, being stuck with a 56K (50.6 actually) connection again might have something to do with it.