June 10, 2007

Server pain

Pixy is in the process of moving everything over from development servers to production servers and has been having some problems with configuration, which is why things have occasionally been painfully slow. Let's all be patient and uncomplaining, OK?

Anyway, to do my little part for relieving the problem, I've reconfigured so that only 10 posts appear on the front page instead of the default 20.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Site Stuff at 09:12 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Urm.  No, that shouldn't be making things painfully slow.  Let me take a look around.

The elapsed time to create this page was 33ms (server side), so the problem may be elsewhere.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 10, 2007 09:48 PM (PiXy!)

2 The timings I'm seeing look pretty normal.  Queries take slightly longer now because they have to go across the network, but that only adds a few tens of milliseconds even to a large page.

Let me know if things are still slow from where you are, and I'll see if I can track it down.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 10, 2007 09:53 PM (PiXy!)

3

Right at the moment it seems pretty brisk. But earlier today it was taking upwards of a minute for me to load the page. In a couple of cases the browser timed out.

Even when it took 20 or 30 seconds to load, the report at the bottom would say that it only took a fraction of a second. I think thats describing CPU-time, not wall-clock time.

That also applied to the management pages, when I was trying to post.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at June 10, 2007 10:43 PM (+rSRq)

4 I think it might have been Comcast's problem, not yours. There was another site I couldn't reach at all about two hours ago and now it responds briskly.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at June 10, 2007 10:52 PM (+rSRq)

5
I think thats describing CPU-time, not wall-clock time.

Yep.  I have a custom setting in that code, and if it's me who's fetching the page I get a more detailed report.  So I can see that this page took 10 milliseconds of CPU time, but 140 milliseconds elapsed time.  (Which is kind of sluggish.  Hmm.)  But clearly you aren't talking about 100ms here or there.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 10, 2007 11:22 PM (PiXy!)

6 If it happens again, I'll do some traceroutes and pings.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at June 11, 2007 12:20 AM (+rSRq)

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.
7kb generated in CPU 0.0126, elapsed 0.0227 seconds.
20 queries taking 0.015 seconds, 23 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.