View Full Version : .org website is slow
Does anyone else find this site slow in calling up pages? i don't have problems on other websites and so must be the server hosting .org
is it hosted on a commercial server or a private one?
Does anyone else find this site slow in calling up pages? i don't have problems on other websites and so must be the server hosting .org
is it hosted on a commercial server or a private one?
Is it down? I think so, and so does the "is it down for me server",
I always find the Org slow after 6.00pm in the evenings but today is horrendous, I have been timed out more times than a little and it's very off putting.
I hope something can be done to improve things or I for one will not bother posting in the evenings!
C3.....:(:~(
I think the fact that hundreds of Wickers all over the world and at home will be looking at the gala photographs; happens every year around this time!
Taking forever to get on the Org and taking ages moving around the Org
John Little
24-Jul-11, 21:42
It's very slow from here too. :confused
essex boy
24-Jul-11, 21:44
It has been very slow for me today
John Little
24-Jul-11, 21:47
Now it's sped up!!
It is not only Slow, it is just Crawling Along. When I click to make this Post it I can go away amd make a cup of tea and be back before it loads in. So Sad it is and it has been like that for Days now. :(
Me too and all of the above complaints...and I'm not the fasted at posting...........grrrrrrr
It has been like this, for ages now.
It's getting really bad for me now, even having trouble connecting to the site never mind bringing up pages. Had time for a bath and nipped to Tesco before the page I wanted came up......Come on Bill, what can you do for us??????
C3.......:eek::roll::(
Been like this for ages. Got to the point I'm giving up with the Org!
It's hardly surprising the poor old Org is slow...you try to keep up with all the fighting that goes on, on here!
And we are adding to the increase in org traffic with this wonderfully enlightening thread! :lol:
oldmarine
26-Jul-11, 17:52
My ISP is very slow so it's not just the ORG.
Walter Ego
26-Jul-11, 20:00
My pet snail (Algernon) is getting all shouty and impatient, too. Damn slow at the moment....the .Org, that is - he's much faster than this place right now...
John Little
26-Jul-11, 20:03
My pet snail (Algernon) is getting all shouty and impatient, too. Damn slow at the moment....the .Org, that is - he's much faster than this place right now...
Is he one of those wind-up snails you can have races with and bet on?
Walter Ego
26-Jul-11, 20:17
Is he one of those wind-up snails you can have races with and bet on?
He's not.
But he is getting very wound up about how long this place is taking to load......
orkneycadian
27-Jul-11, 13:46
Probably all that folk using BT Vision at the same time as you're trying to access 'e org!
Just checked and I'm getting 6.12 download, plenty of comments about the Org being slow - but does anyone actually know why it is? it's been more or less 4 days now?
Niall Fernie
27-Jul-11, 21:04
As per this time last year (and the year before that and the year before that....) its gala time. Everyone loves looking at the gala photos and that puts our server under a huge amount of strain.
Having had this problem in the past we now have a dedicated server which at least prevents the site from crashing completely but with larger and larger numbers of visitors each year it looks like we have over reached the capacity of our once shiny new server. We are now looking into a much bigger and faster server and will hopefully be able to cope with the traffic next year.
To give you an idea of how busy the site has been here are a few rough stats:
almost 350,000 page requests per day
Daily average of 4 pages per second.
Peak average of 22 pages per second.
Add to those figures all the associated files and images that go into building a page and you can see that its one hell of a lot of traffic. Roughly 12gb of traffic on each of our peak days over the last week.
Thanks for that Niall, pretty busy!
As per this time last year (and the year before that and the year before that....) its gala time. Everyone loves looking at the gala photos and that puts our server under a huge amount of strain.
Having had this problem in the past we now have a dedicated server which at least prevents the site from crashing completely but with larger and larger numbers of visitors each year it looks like we have over reached the capacity of our once shiny new server. We are now looking into a much bigger and faster server and will hopefully be able to cope with the traffic next year.
To give you an idea of how busy the site has been here are a few rough stats:
almost 350,000 page requests per day
Daily average of 4 pages per second.
Peak average of 22 pages per second.
Add to those figures all the associated files and images that go into building a page and you can see that its one hell of a lot of traffic. Roughly 12gb of traffic on each of our peak days over the last week.
The ord is a victim of it's own success! Thanks for the explanation Niall......;>)
Walter Ego
28-Jul-11, 07:02
As per this time last year (and the year before that and the year before that....) its gala time. Everyone loves looking at the gala photos and that puts our server under a huge amount of strain.
Having had this problem in the past we now have a dedicated server which at least prevents the site from crashing completely but with larger and larger numbers of visitors each year it looks like we have over reached the capacity of our once shiny new server. We are now looking into a much bigger and faster server and will hopefully be able to cope with the traffic next year.
To give you an idea of how busy the site has been here are a few rough stats:
almost 350,000 page requests per day
Daily average of 4 pages per second.
Peak average of 22 pages per second.
Add to those figures all the associated files and images that go into building a page and you can see that its one hell of a lot of traffic. Roughly 12gb of traffic on each of our peak days over the last week.
I tried explaining all that to Algernon this morning, he just gave me a blank look and went back to his lettuce.
Bobinovich
28-Jul-11, 13:29
Is there any reason why the photos could not be hosted on Flickr, Photobucket, etc. then linked on the Org to take the load off the Org's servers instead Niall?
Niall Fernie
28-Jul-11, 18:20
Because both of those have limits that we would likely breach within a week.
Also the biggest factor against them is the time it takes to create albums etc compared to our own system.
Metalattakk
28-Jul-11, 19:58
Because both of those have limits that we would likely breach within a week.
A Photobucket Pro account ($25 per year) has a 10GB per month bandwidth limit. Are you saying that those Gala photos use up that amount of bandwidth?
Each image is about 100KB each, give or take*.
Approx 10 image views = 1MB, x 1000 = 10,000 image views which makes 1 GB.
Are you really providing 100,000 image views per month?
*Yes I know, slightly more than 100KB but it makes the arithmetic easier!
Bill Fernie
28-Jul-11, 23:01
I will let Niall do the techy answer in more detail if he has time.
What I will say is that the figures I am looking at are way over ten times what you calculate for page views across the site. Gala will account for high proportions in the last week. But other events such as County Show also had high viewing numbers. July break has broken all records on the site every year since we started and this year is breaking them by more than ever.
In July so far around 1000 photos have been added to the site in the various galleries by me alone. Add to that all the sections of the forum and a few with photos then you begin to see the scale.
So instead of 100,000 think 1,000,000 plus for July and it aint finished yet.
Also keeping the photos in our own galleries means we will never lose them.
I have said it before although not for a couple of years we are still amazed at the levels the site reaches and still wait for it to hit its upper level but it seems that year has not been reached yet.
So we are trying to think of the next best way forward if even a new server did not totally fix things and our growth in traffic even overtook that solution that we thought would stand up to the increases. It appears we need an expensive server now to bring up the speeds.
So apologies for the slow speeds and thanks for all your support in making the site so busy.
Bill
Thanks to Bill and Niall as usual - well done, guys. It is a sign of the times that more and more folk are keen to post up (and view) lots of pictures. Chasing bandwidth is a never-ending problem... I know it well. Maybe orgers should try to host their pictures on a site such as Facebook or Photobucket and then create a link for people to view via? Or is this a banned procedure?
Niall Fernie
31-Jul-11, 21:33
MA, we burst 100,000 photos in less than a week during this time of year.
The stats I posted above were purely for Caithness.Org and did not include any sub section like forum.caithness.org, arts, sports etc.
Ricco, its fine for members to have their photos hosted on sites like you suggest and most do already. The tiny number of photos that members do attach to their forum account would barely register in our stats. PLus facebook et al provide much more space for photos than we ever could so there are no limits (well much, much bigger limits) to worry about.
Metalattakk
01-Aug-11, 01:27
MA, we burst 100,000 photos in less than a week during this time of year.
Well then maybe it's time to think about resizing the images (maybe resize the image and remove the 'view full size here' option) to make each image view much less stressful for the server to er, serve.
For example, I've taken this image (http://www.caithness.org/fpb/2011/july/gallery.php?gallery=13&image=0), which is presented on your website as a 122KB file, resized it down to 800 x 528px instead of your 1000 x 660px, and used Photoshop to 'Save for Web and Devices...' on low quality, and the file is now reduced to just 35KB in size:
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z55/Metalattakk/galaresized.jpg
That's nearly 25% of the size of the original, and that means you could serve nearly 4 times as many photos for the same bandwidth cost.
Bill Fernie
01-Aug-11, 07:53
Yes you are right I could reduce the photos and I used to do that. But as time moved on and the quality that digital cameras could deliver we decided to try and increase the quality and the size of photos. The server send out the full file each time so it is already available for the user to select fullsize.
I prepare most of the photos on the web site and Niall is trying to get me organised to do batching and perhaps then I will see if I can reduce a bit further and still maintain reasonable quality. Maybe one day I can put up the whole file without any reductions. If bandwidth heaven ever comes. Then the quality might be assured for anyone in the future looking in. Still who knows if they will use jpegs in the future.
Also although there is a problem at the moment it may be helped once superfast broadband reaches us. Highlands and Islands Enterprise have a programme to do just that. Sooner the better but I understand it will take about three years to arrive all over.
Niall Fernie
01-Aug-11, 20:12
MA, its not really the bandwidth that's giving us the problem (although it probably doesn't help) its the spec of the server that's letting us down. The number of requests on the server is what's causing the problem and that's what we need to rectify.
Although it may be a bit slow at the moment I'd rather look to improve the server than lower the quality of the images.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.