The W
Views: 97760722
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.7.14 1957
The W - the-w.com Site Feedback - Response time oddities recently?
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.84
Pages: 1 2 Next
(596 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (21 total)
emma
Cherries > Peaches








Since: 1.8.02
From: Phoenix-ish

Since last post: 124 days
Last activity: 1 day
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.47
Is anybody else seeing some odd realtime / response time / performance things off & on here on the W recently? Like the last couple of weeks?

    This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 13.219 seconds.
I'm on dial-up, but generally have a pretty good & consistent ISP, & have not been seeing similar things elsewhere. I'm used to seeing the W being quite crisp & consistent in response time when bringing up new pages. Off & on lately though, I've been occasionally getting some unusually slow responses. I don't have any useful pattern of time of day or anything, but thought I'd ask if there's something we're aware of?
Promote this thread!
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.93
It was dragging a bit for me from home last night (where I have Comcast) but I chalked it up to coming on right after the end of RAW.



“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.
I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it."
-- Guru Zim

"Speak English or face admin retribution." -- CRZ
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 712 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.48
I'm on DSL and I've had some similar load times and not just at "peak" times. I've had a couple of instances lately where I've had to surf elsewhere because I couldn't get pages to load.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.66

    Originally posted by bash91
    I'm on DSL and I've had some similar load times and not just at "peak" times. I've had a couple of instances lately where I've had to surf elsewhere because I couldn't get pages to load.

    Tim


Likewise. It seems fine now, though.



Gabba gabba hey!
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
This should be addressed.

We've made two changes to fix this, and at least one of them made a difference.

It wasn't my change that worked



Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
All weekend I was getting pages loading after 75+ seconds, if at all. I'm on a cable modem, btw.




The Catastrophic Annihilation War Room
"We've got separation of powers, checks and balances, and Margaret, vetoing things and sending them back to the Hill!"

Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 365 days
Last activity: 325 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.95
Just wanted to let you know that there still seem to be some intermittent problems.

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 27.214 seconds.
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 60.312 seconds.
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 64.185 seconds.
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 20.898 seconds.

I'm on my work's T1 line, BTW.



NOTE: The above post makes no sense. We apologize for the inconvenience.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: γƒŸγƒγ‚’γƒγƒͺγ‚Ή

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.44
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
    Just wanted to let you know that there still seem to be some intermittent problems.

    This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 27.214 seconds.
    This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 60.312 seconds.
    This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 64.185 seconds.
    This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 20.898 seconds.

    I'm on my work's T1 line, BTW.
This is probably too much to ask for, but specific times and link you were loading would really be helpful. (Next time of course)

(edited by CRZ on 2.2.05 1338)


When it seems like the whole world is full of idiots,
maybe your standards are a bit high.
- Guru Zim
©CRZ™
emma
Cherries > Peaches








Since: 1.8.02
From: Phoenix-ish

Since last post: 124 days
Last activity: 1 day
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.47
Main page, just now (12:38 MST): waited to a no-response at all; reload got an immediate "connection refused" popup; reload again brought the page up perfectly adequately (1.337 sec), & now continues to do fine.
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 712 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.48
1:30 pm EST login confirmation took 45.577 seconds. Entering the TV forum through the new posts only loaded in 50 seconds and moving through there I had similar load times. The politics folder loaded in 74.433 seconds at about 1:45 and the mark forum read page never loaded. I tried to return to the main page and it also never loaded.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
emma
Cherries > Peaches








Since: 1.8.02
From: Phoenix-ish

Since last post: 124 days
Last activity: 1 day
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.47
I'm trying to remember whether it's most often around the "logging on" (or "refreshing" the logon after the login times out). It certainly was for at least some of my observations, including the one earlier this afternoon. Coming back in just now to post this, I waited about 7 seconds for the main page, but once in, am seeing normal results. Would that make any sense?
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2743 days
Last activity: 2586 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 94.255 seconds.

Just now!

(Sunday, February 6, at noon Eastern)



The master wouldn't approve.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: γƒŸγƒγ‚’γƒγƒͺγ‚Ή

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.44
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 94.255 seconds.

    Just now!

    (Sunday, February 6, at noon Eastern)
I still don't know what page you were loading...

I have a new theory. If you haven't marked any forums read in, like, a year...next time you're at the index page try clicking on "Mark all forums read" and see if that helps you out later.

(OR you could edit your profile and turn off "quick links" display - or both)



When it seems like the whole world is full of idiots,
maybe your standards are a bit high.
- Guru Zim
©CRZ™
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2743 days
Last activity: 2586 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by PalpatineW
      This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 94.255 seconds.

      Just now!

      (Sunday, February 6, at noon Eastern)
    I still don't know what page you were loading...

    I have a new theory. If you haven't marked any forums read in, like, a year...next time you're at the index page try clicking on "Mark all forums read" and see if that helps you out later.

    (OR you could edit your profile and turn off "quick links" display - or both)


It was on the front page. I got a load time of approx. twenty seconds on one of the forum indices shortly thereafter, but didn't want to keep coming back here and editing this post. And in that, perhaps I have shirked my duties.

I've turned the quick links off anyway, however. Previously, was the server running through every thread and checking if I'd marked it read before rendering the page?



The master wouldn't approve.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.94
    Originally posted by CRZ
    I have a new theory. If you haven't marked any forums read in, like, a year...next time you're at the index page try clicking on "Mark all forums read" and see if that helps you out later.


I mark all the forums read all the time and still get funky load times occassionally, so I don't think that has anything to do with it.

EDIT: However, RIGHT AFTER I posted that the "Click here if not redirect page blahblahblah" loaded quickly, but the automatic loading of the NEXT page (the one with the thread and my post added) stalled out.

(edited by JayJayDean on 6.2.05 1345)


“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.
I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it."
-- Guru Zim

"Speak English or face admin retribution." -- CRZ
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: γƒŸγƒγ‚’γƒγƒͺγ‚Ή

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.44
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
      Originally posted by CRZ
      I have a new theory. If you haven't marked any forums read in, like, a year...next time you're at the index page try clicking on "Mark all forums read" and see if that helps you out later.


    I mark all the forums read all the time and still get funky load times occassionally, so I don't think that has anything to do with it.
It would if there were lots of OTHER people on at the same time who hadn't, because you're all hitting the database simultaneously. (Like, when PalpatineW and BigDaddyLoco were on at the same time).




When it seems like the whole world is full of idiots,
maybe your standards are a bit high.
- Guru Zim
©CRZ™
hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.05
Main Page, 7.2.05 1040
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 188.609 seconds.



Idle hand spend time at the genitals, and you know how God hates that..
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: γƒŸγƒγ‚’γƒγƒͺγ‚Ή

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.44
Yeah yeah I see it.

I've turned off quick links for everybody, as I'm more and more certain that it's strategic combinations of old-time, non-forum-marking-read people hitting the index page that's causing our mysql to end up stacking up.

If you are accustomed to using quick links and want them back (quick links are the "<", ">" and new post/thread links on the index page), no problem - please edit your profile and you'll find the button to turn quick link display back on.



When it seems like the whole world is full of idiots,
maybe your standards are a bit high.
- Guru Zim
©CRZ™
SchippeWreck
Banger








Since: 26.3.03
From: Glendale, CA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.50
    Originally posted by CRZ
    ...please edit your profile and you'll find the button to turn quick link display back on.


Ah! Fabulous. Thank you. I was just about to ask where they went.



squiz
Salami








Since: 5.1.02
From: Dover, NH

Since last post: 1034 days
Last activity: 136 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.51
    Originally posted by CRZ
    I've turned off quick links for everybody...If you are accustomed to using quick links and want them back (quick links are the "<", ">" and new post/thread links on the index page), no problem - please edit your profile and you'll find the button to turn quick link display back on.


And this saves me from asking my question of where they went. Thanks!




Hej, jag har en gris i byxorna.

Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 6.84
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: A question about the spell checker
Next thread: The name change?
Previous thread: Admit it.
(596 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I deleted all your posts! NOW DO YOU GET IT?
The W - the-w.com Site Feedback - Response time oddities recently?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.111 seconds.