it took the first page of this thread 3 minutes to fully load up on my computer...

that includes me refreshing 2 minutes in...

[Edited on March 10, 2004 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2004 12:35:36 PM

yea, i'm sitting here at work on a t1 connection, and it's taking longer than it'd expect

3/10/2004 2:14:29 PM

times like this I'm glad I don't pay for Tdub

3/10/2004 2:38:40 PM

what's the deal do we need a reboot or what? linked photos dragging us down, huge databases, hardware problem?

3/11/2004 12:07:44 AM

weeeeeeeeee

better now...

what was the deal yesterday?

[Edited on March 11, 2004 at 7:46 AM. Reason : /]

3/11/2004 7:46:05 AM

btttttttttttttttttttttt

3/14/2004 8:40:36 PM

loading pretty slow here on resnet, seems like a bandwidth problem

3/14/2004 10:54:42 PM

search is still somewhat disabled... the site needs some help.

3/14/2004 11:04:05 PM

It's like a flashback to the days of dial-up.

The pages are loading at less than 3.5 KB/sec

Quote :

"times like this I'm glad I don't pay for Tdub"

I agree. Bandwidth is not as expensive as some people on here think it is.

And if someone says "If more people paid for 'premie,' we wouldn't have this problem," he/she needs to be shot.

3/14/2004 11:42:08 PM

This is fucking rediculus right now. I'm waiting a minute for each page, literaly.

FIX THIS SHIT NOW!

3/14/2004 11:47:14 PM

heh..it goes on

3/14/2004 11:56:25 PM

PLEASE STOP PEOPLE FROM LOOKING AT PHOTO GALLERIES/THREADS WITHOUT SIGNING ON.

that might help, right?

3/15/2004 12:16:16 AM

this has nothing to do with how much we pay for... for some reason there seems to be a ceiling at 3.5 mbit/s outbound ... checking with provider...

3/15/2004 12:46:07 AM

little bit better now

3/15/2004 1:36:57 AM

It is slow this monring. You can see the tables being built. At least it is working though!

3/15/2004 10:43:18 AM

I'm really disturbed by the lag... and it seems to be getting worse too

3/15/2004 12:02:58 PM

still pretty bad right now.....

good luck crazyj on getting this fixed...we have faith in you

3/15/2004 12:04:17 PM

yeah it's really bad right now

g/l with the fix

3/15/2004 1:57:05 PM

[Edited on March 15, 2004 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ]

3/15/2004 4:05:51 PM

3/15/2004 5:24:44 PM

Quote :

"this has nothing to do with how much we pay for"

thanks jake for checking into the problems..............
-Ps..jake: havent seen you around The Links lately....you still out there?

3/15/2004 5:25:16 PM

yeah still at the links....

not sure if my provider is gonna help me out on this one. i think they may be trying to get rid of me!

anyway, i turned on some compression that will reduce bandwidth consumption, but may hurt server performance in other areas. we'll see!

3/15/2004 7:09:31 PM

it's running a lot faster at the moment

3/15/2004 7:10:14 PM

Quote :

"yeah still at the links.... not sure if my provider is gonna help me out on this one. i think they may be trying to get rid of me! anyway, i turned on some compression that will reduce bandwidth consumption, but may hurt server performance in other areas. we'll see!"

Thank you.

3/15/2004 7:30:24 PM

stick the server on campus, port 80 should still be open.

3/15/2004 8:10:37 PM

i just finished reading all the away messages and profiles on my buddy list while waiting to load pages....

3/15/2004 10:29:39 PM

jake will you make me a moderator?

3/15/2004 10:36:51 PM

damn thing is slow as fuck!!

3/15/2004 10:47:49 PM

Its better again!

3/16/2004 1:50:19 AM

There is no lag at 645 am!

3/16/2004 6:43:43 AM

nor at 7:44!

3/16/2004 7:44:26 AM

...

lag during peak hours

no lag during non-peak hours (read 3-10 am)

3/16/2004 7:54:00 AM

SOB is moving fast this morning...pages are loading for me w/in seconds

3/16/2004 8:22:22 AM

it is going to be faster than it ever was before at off peak. we are using this compression that really seems to be speeding things up. however, at peak hours we are really squeezed.

my provider quoted me about 5x the price for 'dedicated' bandwidth. currently i am on shared and apparently some other customers started using their bandwidth too. everyone on our network is very slow at peak.

3/16/2004 9:46:31 AM

very noticable, even on my 56k

3/16/2004 11:36:17 AM

not allowing people that aren't members to view certain areas of tww is a viable solution in my opinion - it would bring in more money from interested people that would now have to register an account and it would cut down on wasted bandwidth

[Edited on March 16, 2004 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2004 1:21:30 PM

viable?

did you graduate?

3/16/2004 1:32:25 PM

haha not till dec '04 or may '05 - depending on how shit goes

3/16/2004 1:39:25 PM

if you changed from using table layouts to css, it would reduce your page load times DRAMATICALLY, and would also make compression tremendously more effective.

3/16/2004 3:18:15 PM

i have always thought that something of this nature would help dramatically...

http://www.spinwave.com/crunchers.html

what type of compression is used?

3/16/2004 3:54:17 PM

/]

3/16/2004 4:11:08 PM

but most of our data is TABULAR!! even the staunch css advocates recommend using tables for table based data layouts.

the amount of basic layout rendered with each page is probably 2-3 kb, negligible.

photos is what kills us

3/16/2004 4:47:38 PM

i dunno how feasible this is:

how about an option for every person who registers with us. they can choose to make their pics linkable outside of tww or not. i would personally have no qualms making pics in my own gallery non linkable if it would help us out.

plus you could always make that the default choice, therefore only people who are looking to turn it on would bother after they have registered.

3/16/2004 4:58:47 PM

J: Just had a better look at the source. Apologies, because it has been cleaned up dramatically since the last time I looked at it. It sounds like it's about time to move the images to a separate server, or at least have some kind of load balanced mirror for them.

If you need a mirror (partial or full) let me know I may be able to help you out.

3/16/2004 5:17:53 PM

just something about the image compression. I had a photo in my gallery that i compressed 46 percent without a noticable difference at all. Having the images compressed would definitely help. I then uploaded it back into the gallery and there was weight added to it. How much does the watermark add? Also is image compression not an option?

3/16/2004 5:33:27 PM

Quote :

"but most of our data is TABULAR!! even the staunch css advocates recommend using tables for table based data layouts. the amount of basic layout rendered with each page is probably 2-3 kb, negligible. photos is what kills us"

Myself and others have suggested you require user accounts to access the photo gallery. You can still allow remote linking by users, just not lurkers.

3/16/2004 5:51:31 PM

yeah i should probably look more into the apis for image compression. currently we are using the default compression level built into .net gdi+.

3/16/2004 9:47:31 PM

assuming the majority of tdub users have ncsu filespace, couldn't you write a script that would set up a tww image directory for them on their filespace and have their pictures uploaded to that space? i keep a lot of images on my filespace b/c i don't have premie for unlimited images. hosting images on ncsu space instead of tdub space should free up a lot of bandwidth i would think. and you could even extend the idea not just to ncsu filespace, but each user could be able to specify some other url (if they have other hosting available) as an image directory and the photo gallery could display the images from the other site. just an idea i had...

3/16/2004 10:17:22 PM

another really good idea would be to implement PNG. when a user uploads and image, it should encode to both png and jpg, compare sizes and drop the higher one. PNG would do really well for all non-photo images (which there are tons of on here)

3/17/2004 10:24:42 AM

this might be a well hated thought but it is kinda obvious which threads would kill bandwidth, from post your favorite pic, to hottest girl, christinamodel etc... and it might be more trouble than what it is worth but you could cut those threads down to 25 messages a page vs 50 or do some ratio of amount of pictures to amount of messages.

hell to be fair just limit all pages to 25 messages.

3/17/2004 10:31:00 AM