March 05, 2014


Ace says that is under a massive spam attack today. I know that Wonderduck caught some of the flack. is the same physical server as (they're different virtual servers running on the same hardware) so indirectly it's possible for it to affect performance, and I've noticed performance being poor a couple of times.

Be patient. I'm sure Pixy will do whatever he can to fix it.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Site Stuff at 05:52 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I did?

I mean, "yeah, I did... me and Ace, yeah, we're about equal importance in the blogosphere."

Posted by: Wonderduck at March 05, 2014 07:26 PM (JpqPY)

2 I ran my bulk de-spammy thing after seeing it hit your site, Wonderduck.  Should be clean now.

And yes, was running like a slug for about half an hour while I fixed things.  It should be happier now.  Load on the server peaked at around 400; it's back down to 7 now.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 05, 2014 07:38 PM (PiXy!)

3 It all runs on one physical box? If so, that's impressive; I thought it was spread across multiple boxes a while back.

Maybe this is a sign of technical advance and we'll have ampersands any day now.

Posted by: pgfraering at March 06, 2014 06:27 PM (kwc/t)


It's one physical box with about a thousand cores (give or take). The advantage of doing it that way is shared peripherals (SSD's, HD's) and shared RAM (measured in dozens of gigabytes).

And then when you set up your virtual machines you can control how much resources each one uses, so as to make the busy ones more hefty.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 06, 2014 06:59 PM (+rSRq)

5 It used to be two servers, then I wanted to add hardware RAID and SSDs, and it was cheaper to do that with one big server and virtualise it, so we've been running that way for about four years.

Now pricing has moved in a different direction and it's cheaper to run multiple small servers again, so I'm working on that.  On the one hand, there's more to look after; on the other hand, no single problem can take down the whole network.

(I'll have to look at that ampersand thing...  I think it's the HTML filter over at Ace's site.)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 07, 2014 01:26 AM (PiXy!)

6 I've seen people use ampersands, so I know it's possible, I just don't which implementation actually works with the spam filter.

I think the running joke is 'ampersands are for closers!"

Posted by: pgfraering at March 07, 2014 09:22 AM (MABdW)

7 Is there some sort of problem?  &&&&&

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 07, 2014 11:04 AM (+rSRq)

8 MOOOOMMMMM!!! See? He's doing the ampersand thing again!!!!!!!

Posted by: pgfraering at March 09, 2014 05:19 PM (RBlwW)



Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 09, 2014 06:46 PM (+rSRq)

10 Pfraering, what have we told you?  If Steven is doing the ampersand thing, do it right back to him.

And no hitting!

Posted by: Wonderduck at March 09, 2014 07:28 PM (OLSt7)

11 never mind; I thought I could make another dumb ampersand joke and it would be funny, but I rolled a 1.

Posted by: pgfraering at March 09, 2014 10:41 PM (MABdW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Enclose all spoilers in spoiler tags:
      [spoiler]your spoiler here[/spoiler]
Spoilers which are not properly tagged will be ruthlessly deleted on sight.
Also, I hate unsolicited suggestions and advice. (Even when you think you're being funny.)

At Chizumatic, we take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately.

How to put links in your comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.01, elapsed 0.0223 seconds.
20 queries taking 0.0134 seconds, 28 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.