PDA

View Full Version : Forums too busy grumble



max.spicer
2006-03-27, 10:08
I've noticed recently that when you get the forums too busy notice, it still updates the last visited information. This means that it still marks topics as read, even though you can't read them. This gets quite annoying after a while! I realise that this is likely a vbulletin issue, but is there nothing that can be done about it?

Max

Michaelwagner
2006-03-27, 12:48
You could post a bug for it. There's a section in bugs.slim for the board.

autopilot
2006-03-27, 16:03
Yeah, i have been getting a lot of 'server too busy' for a couple fo days now too'. Will post a bug, but seems ok at the moment.

max.spicer
2006-03-28, 04:53
I spoke to Dan about this and he said he'd try raising the number of simultaneous connections that vbulletin allows. The issue itself is one for vbulletin, not slimdevices.

Max


Yeah, i have been getting a lot of 'server too busy' for a couple fo days now too'. Will post a bug, but seems ok at the moment.

dean
2006-03-28, 18:26
Dan has changed the configuration of vBulletin to not say "too busy"
at some arbitrary cpu load on the machine.

You shouldn't see this error any more at all.

Michaelwagner
2006-03-28, 19:28
You mean it was saying it was too busy when it wasn't actually busy?

Ben Sandee
2006-03-28, 20:44
On 3/28/06, Michaelwagner <
Michaelwagner.25etbz1143599401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>
> You mean it was saying it was too busy when it wasn't actually busy?


It was probably denying a percentage of requests to ensure that at least
some users could have a good experience. While you may be getting 'server
too busy' others are happily reading the forums -- making the server too
busy. :-)

Michaelwagner
2006-03-28, 22:40
Yes, I understood it was doing that, but wouldn't a better measure to start cutting people off be response time?

There've been times when I was getting wonderful response time and could have handled a bit of graceful degradation rather than getting "server busy" when it hadn't been a second before (and wasn't a second or two later).

dean
2006-03-29, 10:08
On Mar 28, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Michaelwagner wrote:
> You mean it was saying it was too busy when it wasn't actually busy?
"Busy" is hard to define, especially on that server which is running
a lot of services (web, subversion, lists, wiki, forums, etc...).
It's probably better to have a slow experience rather than a failed
"too busy" experience until we see that there's a breaking point
where it's too slow to be usable.

If we ever hit that, we'll have to do something else, like manually
disable a service temporarily or upgrade the hardware.

-dean

JJZolx
2006-03-29, 12:43
On Mar 28, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Michaelwagner wrote:
> You mean it was saying it was too busy when it wasn't actually busy?
"Busy" is hard to define, especially on that server which is running
a lot of services (web, subversion, lists, wiki, forums, etc...).
It's probably better to have a slow experience rather than a failed
"too busy" experience until we see that there's a breaking point
where it's too slow to be usable.

If we ever hit that, we'll have to do something else, like manually
disable a service temporarily or upgrade the hardware.

-dean
You have _one_ server?

Fix that.

dean
2006-03-29, 12:59
On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:43 AM, JJZolx wrote:
> dean Wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Michaelwagner wrote:
>>> You mean it was saying it was too busy when it wasn't actually busy?
>> "Busy" is hard to define, especially on that server which is running
>> a lot of services (web, subversion, lists, wiki, forums, etc...).
>> It's probably better to have a slow experience rather than a failed
>> "too busy" experience until we see that there's a breaking point
>> where it's too slow to be usable.
>>
>> If we ever hit that, we'll have to do something else, like manually
>> disable a service temporarily or upgrade the hardware.
>>
>> -dean
> You have _one_ server?
>
> Fix that.
Fix what? The system is sufficiently powerful to run all those
services simultaneously, even when we have a large burst of activity
(like a product announcement or a Slashdotting). It has redundant
internal hardware and we can move quickly to a backup server in case
of a catastrophic system failure.

The problem was that the default vBulletin configuration was too
conservative about when it would put up a "Too Busy" warning. We
fixed that.

Michaelwagner
2006-03-29, 18:19
The problem was that the default vBulletin configuration was too conservative about when it would put up a "Too Busy" warning. We fixed that.
OK. That makes sense to me now. Like the governor on a diesel engine was set too low.

Skunk
2006-03-29, 21:09
The problem was that the default vBulletin configuration was too
conservative about when it would put up a "Too Busy" warning. We
fixed that.

Thanks for fixing it. I was starting to think you guys had loaded SlimServer onto the Web server. <--bad joke.

Actually, I was starting to wonder if the photo thread in the audiophile forum wasn't such a bright idea.