Page 1 of 2

GODDAMN SERVER

Posted: 2003-05-03 09:19pm
by Darth Wong
MJ's server crapped out again, and I couldn't contact him. Argh.

Posted: 2003-05-03 09:27pm
by Darth Wong
I am currently hosting the board on my home LAN. Not sure how long this situation will last, but MJ's server reliability problem has been rather severe the last couple of days, and without root access, I can't restore it myself, so I'm basically dependent upon his schedule; if he's out drinking or something, I can't get ahold of him to ask for help.

Posted: 2003-05-03 09:29pm
by Admiral Valdemar
Is there anything we can do, perhaps limit our time visiting the place on this server or perhaps sending people round to "convince" MJ of these problems?

Posted: 2003-05-03 09:34pm
by Darth Wong
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Is there anything we can do, perhaps limit our time visiting the place on this server or perhaps sending people round to "convince" MJ of these problems?
Well, for all I know my home server is capable of handling the load all by itself (we'll see when more people log on, eh?)

In the meantime, I'll just see if MJ can figure out what happened. I can't very well move the board back there until he's got the problem sorted out, not unless he gives me root access so I can restart dead Apache processes myself, and I doubt he's willing to do that.

Posted: 2003-05-03 09:38pm
by HemlockGrey
I find the emptiness of the forums to be quite liberating.

Posted: 2003-05-03 09:57pm
by Darth Wong
I suppose people will have to report back to me about just how good or bad the performance is with this server. I can't tell how fast or slow it is because I'm local to it, ie- I don't have to access it through my Net connection.

Posted: 2003-05-03 09:59pm
by Enforcer Talen
working fine here.

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:00pm
by Howedar
I was wondering what was up.

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:01pm
by Joe
At least the time is correct, for a change.

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:03pm
by Arrow
Actually, it seems to be running better than on MJ's server.

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:11pm
by Admiral Valdemar
I concur, it's actually got the right time and running as though it is actually on a decent server for once.

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:22pm
by Hamel
It feels pretty nice right now

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:32pm
by Seggybop
This is faster than normal. It might be only because most people think it's dead and aren't trying to access, though.

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:35pm
by Zathras
It's working better than average for me, anyway....

Re: GODDAMN SERVER

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:41pm
by Rob Wilson
Darth Wong wrote:MJ's server crapped out again, and I couldn't contact him. Argh.
Looks like i missed the fun, though it appears quite stable just now on your Home system. And the time is indeed correct rather than 20+ minutes slow. That said, how does the current number of people on right now (46), compare to the normal load? And what'll happen if I post at my normal rate? :shock: I think, until we know how much load your server can take, that we should voluntarily cut out the spam and TGODing, just until you can get an idea for strain on your system.

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:44pm
by Glocksman
Browses nice and fast here in Indiana.
Search function gave a quick response as well.

Though we'll have to see how it does with 500 users at once.

Re: GODDAMN SERVER

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:45pm
by Darth Wong
Rob Wilson wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:MJ's server crapped out again, and I couldn't contact him. Argh.
Looks like i missed the fun, though it appears quite stable just now on your Home system. And the time is indeed correct rather than 20+ minutes slow. That said, how does the current number of people on right now (46), compare to the normal load? And what'll happen if I post at my normal rate? :shock: I think, until we know how much load your server can take, that we should voluntarily cut out the spam and TGODing, just until you can get an idea for strain on your system.
I just checked, and there's 55 people on. That's actually a fairly typical load. I'm a little surprised; I expected more of a severe load on my system (the dedicated server is a P600 with 512MB of RAM).

The only real impact on my system seems to be the wildly flashing lights on my DSL modem :)

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:47pm
by Rob Wilson
Glocksman wrote:Browses nice and fast here in Indiana.
Search function gave a quick response as well.

Though we'll have to see how it does with 500 users at once.
Well the record to date is 82 at once, and we currently have 61, and it's stil holding up fine. We'll have to see what happens under protracted load though.

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:49pm
by Glocksman
The only real impact on my system seems to be the wildly flashing lights on my DSL modem
You don't have a bandwidth cap, do you?

At least you aren't doing this over a cable modem.
My download speeds are fantastic, but my upload speed sucks ass at about 30K/sec.

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:49pm
by Howedar
Its starting to slow down for me.

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:50pm
by Vertigo1
Yeah, its running much faster on my end.

Posted: 2003-05-03 10:54pm
by Alyeska
Glocksman wrote:
The only real impact on my system seems to be the wildly flashing lights on my DSL modem
You don't have a bandwidth cap, do you?

At least you aren't doing this over a cable modem.
My download speeds are fantastic, but my upload speed sucks ass at about 30K/sec.
Bandwidth caps are almost purely for Cable Modems. I have yet to hear of any DSL connections with that. I myself have averaged 30GB in a single month on my DSL modem and I never got a call from my ISP threatening to break my legs if I didn't stop. :?

Posted: 2003-05-03 11:00pm
by Enigma
Alyeska wrote:
Glocksman wrote:
The only real impact on my system seems to be the wildly flashing lights on my DSL modem
You don't have a bandwidth cap, do you?

At least you aren't doing this over a cable modem.
My download speeds are fantastic, but my upload speed sucks ass at about 30K/sec.
Bandwidth caps are almost purely for Cable Modems. I have yet to hear of any DSL connections with that. I myself have averaged 30GB in a single month on my DSL modem and I never got a call from my ISP threatening to break my legs if I didn't stop. :?
Where I am, cable has no cap while DSL has a 10gig limit (5up\5down).

Posted: 2003-05-03 11:13pm
by Rob Wilson
xtreme wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Bandwidth caps are almost purely for Cable Modems. I have yet to hear of any DSL connections with that. I myself have averaged 30GB in a single month on my DSL modem and I never got a call from my ISP threatening to break my legs if I didn't stop. :?
Where I am, cable has no cap while DSL has a 10gig limit (5up\5down).
Ah another UK resident. :D I have on occasion averaged 40-50 GBs a day for a few weeks while I've been out of town and left Kazaalite running (you should have seen the list of uploads) and nary a word from my ISP. Yep NTL may have newserver problems but they haven't let me down on the upload download front. BT would have had a small fit at that and doubtless demanded blood!

Posted: 2003-05-03 11:16pm
by Darth Wong
The tech support people said I wouldn't be cut off for excess bandwidth, but I talked to two separate people, and honestly, I wouldn't trust those nitwits to tie their own shoelaces. So I guess we'll find out if I have a cap :)