PDA

View Full Version : Forum takes too long to load!



randell6564
August 16th, 2006, 02:00 AM
Hi folks!

I don't know, maybe it's just me. but does it seem to anyone that the ubuntu forum is taking a long time to load? Especially when I try and post!

I was told weeks ago that it is just "growing pains", but it's still here!
I Love this forum, but honestly, I get more help from LQ (www.linuxquestions.org), because I have been aborting attempts to pull up ubuntu forums since it lags so much!

I initially thought that it might be my browser, but I get an instant response from everywhere else that I go.

goatflyer
August 16th, 2006, 03:50 AM
Yes, for me last few days the forum seems to hang for a long time about 10% of the time. I don't know if its 'growing pains' or what, but it is site-related.

KiwiNZ
August 16th, 2006, 04:01 AM
Yes it is growing pains. This forum is growing rapidly and the database is getting hammered. We are upgrading hardware to keep pace.

We do apologise for the current hassles

richbarna
August 16th, 2006, 04:02 AM
It's the same for me too. At first I put it down to my 1Mb Spanish connection, but I have been to other forums and websites with a lot of members and have no problems.

Hopefully it will sort itself out soon.

ubuntu-geek
August 16th, 2006, 09:13 PM
I put a request into canonical for more ram for the database server last week.

randell6564
August 17th, 2006, 10:31 PM
JEEZ! Whats going on folks? When is it gonna get better? LQ is lightning fast and they are just as popular as ubuntu forums!

panickedthumb
August 18th, 2006, 12:35 AM
JEEZ! Whats going on folks? When is it gonna get better? LQ is lightning fast and they are just as popular as ubuntu forums!
growing pains my friend, growing pains. It'll clear up.

jdong
August 18th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Patience.... we feel your pain and we're trying to work to improve the situation.

randell6564
August 18th, 2006, 10:11 PM
Patience.... we feel your pain and we're trying to work to improve the situation.

OK,OK, but cant I get some Red Rose while I wait? lol!

Biltong (Dee)
August 18th, 2006, 11:19 PM
Geez, I didn't know you were into gardening :D

Hey, there's an idea to keep you busy while the page is loading...

ComplexNumber
August 18th, 2006, 11:40 PM
i get soooooooooo many "timed out"errors on this forum. there have been so many times when i've been writing a reply, press the "submit reply" button...and watch nothing happen whilst the 'busy' cursor spins, eventually leading to that all-too-common "timed out" :D. i've now got in the habit of copying what i've wrritten each time and copying into leafpad(ie text editor) just in case i lose everything after a time out. the forum seems to be down for longer than its up :confused:

randell6564
August 19th, 2006, 01:04 AM
Geez, I didn't know you were into gardening :D

Hey, there's an idea to keep you busy while the page is loading...

I meant Red rose as in Roseh (wine), silly! I just dont know how to put that little thingy above the letter 'e' for pronunciation.

randell6564
August 19th, 2006, 01:05 AM
i get soooooooooo many "timed out"errors on this forum. there have been so many times when i've been writing a reply, press the "submit reply" button...and watch nothing happen whilst the 'busy' cursor spins, eventually leading to that all-too-common "timed out" :D. i've now got in the habit of copying what i've wrritten each time and copying into leafpad(ie text editor) just in case i lose everything after a time out. the forum seems to be down for longer than its up :confused:

It actually does seem better today! At least for me. Keep it up folks, whatever your doing!

randell6564
August 21st, 2006, 09:04 PM
OK! Today is Horrible! It really sucks to have to form a post with my text editor, save it to my home folder in case the post that I am trying to reply to, or create times out!](*,) :evil:

wpshooter
August 21st, 2006, 09:58 PM
I have this same problem sometimes with Ubuntu site but it is even worse when I try to open "folding-at-home" forum site. You should give it a try a few times. And I doubt that they have the traffic that this site has !!!

ubuntu-geek
August 21st, 2006, 10:03 PM
If you look back at post #5 you will see we requested additional ram for the servers.. http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1386880&postcount=5 until this happens we will have slow times :(

randell6564
August 21st, 2006, 10:04 PM
I have this same problem sometimes with Ubuntu site but it is even worse when I try to open "folding-at-home" forum site. You should give it a try a few times. And I doubt that they have the traffic that this site has !!!

I just dont understand! linuxquestions.org (LQ), is VERY popular and well known to linux users, so they have GOT to have the same, if not more traffic than ubuntu forum! I mean, what is it that you guy's need and we can all pitch in and buy it for you! lol!

randell6564
August 21st, 2006, 10:08 PM
If you look back at post #5 you will see we requested additional ram for the servers.. http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1386880&postcount=5 until this happens we will have slow times :(

Hi Geek! I guess it's the red-tape huh? having to get the request through all the sudo-bosses and pencil-pushers?

randell6564
August 21st, 2006, 10:11 PM
If you look back at post #5 you will see we requested additional ram for the servers.. http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1386880&postcount=5 until this happens we will have slow times :(

Hi Geek! I guess it's the red-tape huh? having to get the request through all the sudo-bosses and pencil-pushers?

Well, I think that you guy's did not expect the fame that your distro would be getting and subsequently did not prepare for it. So, I guess that would be a good thing!

I still Love ya!

jdong
August 21st, 2006, 11:03 PM
Well, since Canonical started hosting the forums we're no longer in charge (nor have the authority to) manage the hardware the forums is hosted on. The servers currently are "massively underpowered" according to vBulletin's techs. We have asked Canonical for more RAM to handle the load, so please be patient.... There's not much else we (the forum staff) can do about it.

steve.horsley
August 23rd, 2006, 12:04 AM
I guess "massively underpowered" is near the truth. I hope Canonical can find the resources to do something because we could be driving new users away because we can't answer their questions.

I must say it is gratifying to know how much demand there is. It looks to me as though the user population has doubled in the last month or so, since Dapper was released. Am I right in this estimnate?

jdong
August 24th, 2006, 08:12 PM
We have temporarily turned off some of the front-page stats in an effort to lower forum load... hope it helps a bit.

steve.horsley
August 24th, 2006, 09:29 PM
I don't think "helps a bit" is quite right. Unless you just haven't built up the user numbers again since the brief outage (It doesn't say how many there are now), you seem to have totally revitalised the servers. They're flying at the moment. Flying. They're a pleasure to use again.

randell6564
August 24th, 2006, 10:02 PM
We have temporarily turned off some of the front-page stats in an effort to lower forum load... hope it helps a bit.

Seems to have helped a little, but it still stinks compared to other forums.

Why would it take Canonical so long to respond to the need for beefing up the server? Seems that they would want to stay on the bleeding edge of things!

Anyway, I'll hang around cuz I've become a faithful ubuntu user, but I sure hope that the big 'C' gets their big 'A' in gear soon!

orb9220
September 5th, 2006, 09:26 AM
Yeah you all doing a great! Job with what you have to endure. But I am noticeing a larger and larger percentage of wait times for connecting and waiting status messages.

Ok snitch out the pencil pushers where do the live what are thier home phone numbers? Come Out! Come Out! U pencil pushing creatans,

"We Want Our Ram,We Want Our Ram,We Want Our Ram!"

AHHhhh! Now I feel Better!

Keep up the great work!

OffHand
September 5th, 2006, 08:06 PM
Well, I'm sorry to say so but these load times look very unprofessional and is just lame in general.
Load times of over a minute is just not right. When is Canonical making a move? You should know I really like this forum and appreciate your efforts but the state it is in now is far from a solid support platform and, I will say it again, looks very unprofessional.

A screenshot says more than a 1000 words.

alecjw
September 5th, 2006, 08:20 PM
I put a request into canonical for more ram for the database server last week.
lol (dunno why i find that funny).
What are the current specs?

orb9220
September 7th, 2006, 03:38 AM
Ok is ram going to do the trick? I have seen over the last 2-3 weeks a steady increase in wait times from about 20% to now which is approching 50% of the time of waiting >15 secs with connecting and waiting status messages.

Solution: Please send Names,email addresses,Home addresses,Children's names and schools they attend. Of the individuals that make the decisions.

My team is ready to go and the black helicopter is fueled. Send GPS coordinates and authorize and activate operation Ram-Back!

Stew2
September 7th, 2006, 03:46 AM
I've noticed the forums are very slow loading as of late too. I even get "time outs" on my browser about 30% of the time. Kind of a pain when you are trying to post or reply to something only to get a time out message. Hopefully the ram will help...

Regards,
Stew2

angkor
September 7th, 2006, 08:14 AM
Ubuntu-geek, have you considered putting up adds up on ubuntuforums.org? I know many people probably won't like it but this is a highly visited site and it could be done just like linuxquestions.org. The adds are quite unobtrusive.

I have no idea how much cash that would generate but maybe it'll let you buy your own equipment in stead of depending on canonical.

omns
September 7th, 2006, 09:13 AM
.

OffHand
September 7th, 2006, 09:34 AM
Let's all be patient, I'm sure canonical will fix things up soon :)

That's what we heared weeks ago.

matthew
September 7th, 2006, 10:11 AM
It couldn't hurt to post a comment on the bug that's been filed on this...trying to get Canonical's attention so we can get this fixed...

https://launchpad.net/products/ubuntuforums.org/+bug/59094

OffHand
September 7th, 2006, 10:36 AM
It couldn't hurt to post a comment on the bug that's been filed on this...trying to get Canonical's attention so we can get this fixed...

https://launchpad.net/products/ubuntuforums.org/+bug/59094

Comment posted. I hope this will get their attention.

omns
September 7th, 2006, 10:44 AM
.

orb9220
September 7th, 2006, 01:00 PM
info@canonical.com is the only email contact I can find on thier site.
and an address.

And no phone number.

I thought that this was linux for human beings but thier are none to contact.

jdong
September 7th, 2006, 01:11 PM
We are currently collecting statistical data regarding server load and will make a case for server upgrades to Canonical shortly.

The load times have gone up again recently, so sorry about that... :(

Frank Golden
September 7th, 2006, 10:00 PM
We are currently collecting statistical data regarding server load and will make a case for server upgrades to Canonical shortly.

The load times have gone up again recently, so sorry about that... :(
Are you trying to say Canonical isn't convinced that there is a problem. Are they really Microsoft or what!!!

These forums are the only real lifeline most users have.

orb9220
September 7th, 2006, 10:06 PM
canonical may be the body but the forums are the life blood.

We all know what happens when you cut off the circulation.

As usual the Head always thinks it's the most important part of the body.

Only other contact so far:

Media contacts

Jane Silber
Canonical Limited
Telephone: +44 20 7052 9843
Email: [MAILTO] jane.silber@canonical.com
Web: [WWW] http://www.ubuntu.com, [WWW] http://www.canonical.com

jdong
September 7th, 2006, 10:15 PM
Are you trying to say Canonical isn't convinced that there is a problem.
Canonical is apparently unconvinced that a database server needs any more than 1GB of RAM. No further comment from me about the issue... :)

bobbybobington
September 7th, 2006, 10:21 PM
this isn't just a speed issue, it can be pretty bad when it timeouts and i try to load like 3 times before i get it to go. Nobody especially noobs should have to deal with this.

Dinerty
September 7th, 2006, 10:37 PM
It is very annoying, but cannot be helped, the forum staff have advised the neccessary people, we just need to build a good case about it.

One minute everything loads fine then the next it's poor again, we just need to hold onto things, noone wants this, hang in there guys

OffHand
September 7th, 2006, 10:56 PM
Canonical is apparently unconvinced that a database server needs any more than 1GB of RAM. No further comment from me about the issue... :)

I have emailed them this picture...

alecjw
September 10th, 2006, 06:48 PM
I may be able to donate 512MB if I sell my old wireless card.

hoagie
September 10th, 2006, 09:28 PM
I can sent canonical my old ram chip, of 1gig. Just give me the address.

jdong
September 10th, 2006, 10:02 PM
I don't think sending canonical sticks of RAM is the solution.... I doubt their servers use the same type of RAM that we'd own, and even if that was the case I don't think canonical would put "foreign" hardware in their servers.

It's more about getting canonical's attention focused on the problem at hand. Let them know how slow the forums are, and how important the forums are to you.

matthew
September 10th, 2006, 10:02 PM
I would again like to encourage people to post their thoughts on forum load times in the Launchpad bug that has been filed.

https://launchpad.net/products/ubuntuforums.org/+bug/59094

matthew
September 10th, 2006, 10:59 PM
I would again like to encourage people to post their thoughts on forum load times in the Launchpad bug that has been filed.

https://launchpad.net/products/ubuntuforums.org/+bug/59094

benplaut
September 11th, 2006, 08:07 AM
did something upgrade? seems quite a bit faster today...

or maybe this is just opendns finally kicking in ;)

hoagie
September 11th, 2006, 01:59 PM
Yeah today it was alot faster. Maybee at night theres more people on the forums. Will see](*,) :???:

jdong
September 11th, 2006, 02:17 PM
To the best of my knowledge, nothing happened... just we are lucky for now? ;)

matthew
September 11th, 2006, 03:22 PM
No luck here...it took me forever to post this message.

jdong
September 11th, 2006, 03:29 PM
It seems like posting a message is the weak spot...

omns
September 11th, 2006, 09:30 PM
...

jdong
September 11th, 2006, 09:38 PM
Half of the problem is solved, so we hope. We now have a whopping 12GB of RAM in our web server.

We're still working on getting more RAM put into the database server.

So, let's thank Canonical for getting us that RAM for the webserver, but hope that they will be just as willing to upgrade the starved database server.

randell6564
September 11th, 2006, 09:46 PM
I've made it policy lately to copy posts before posting them, as a backup for when the page times out.
Yeah.,it seems thats a popular 'Modus Operandi' of the Ubuntu Forum community!

It's funny.,When I'm interacting in another forum and I read a post that refers to copying a reply due to timing-out, the first thing that comes to mind is, "This guy must be a member of ubuntuforums.org!"

Nice OS folks, but your site SUCKS the BIG ONE!

Stew2
September 12th, 2006, 12:18 AM
Afraid to say that I am still having timeouts, 2 in the last 10 minutes or so and the load times still seem slow :confused: Perhaps it was just faster on off peak times? 5:17 P.M. mountain time here.

steve.horsley
September 13th, 2006, 09:55 PM
The last two days seem to have been very bad. I do wonder if a sackful of RAM will be enough to fix the problem. Is something swap-thrashing or disk-bound? I'm curious to know just what the problem is.

There was a collection for a server upgrade a few weeks ago, wasn't there? How did that get on?

ubuntu-geek
September 13th, 2006, 09:57 PM
The last two days seem to have been very bad. I do wonder if a sackful of RAM will be enough to fix the problem. Is something swap-thrashing or disk-bound? I'm curious to know just what the problem is.

There was a collection for a server upgrade a few weeks ago, wasn't there? How did that get on?
that was for our offsite backup.

OffHand
September 13th, 2006, 10:07 PM
Yeah.,it seems thats a popular 'Modus Operandi' of the Ubuntu Forum community!

It's funny.,When I'm interacting in another forum and I read a post that refers to copying a reply due to timing-out, the first thing that comes to mind is, "This guy must be a member of ubuntuforums.org!"

Nice OS folks, but your site SUCKS the BIG ONE!

Copying a reply before posting is so... so Windows. I agree it's a MAJOR SHAME to such a nice distro. I'm getting more annoyed by it by the day.
It really does suck but Canonical says it's all good... well, it's not.
Even a blind man can see that. But whatever... I do not blame the admins of this forum but I do blame Canonical for not acting responsible and being ignorant.

jdong
September 13th, 2006, 10:08 PM
The last two days seem to have been very bad. I do wonder if a sackful of RAM will be enough to fix the problem. Is something swap-thrashing or disk-bound? I'm curious to know just what the problem is.


It's RAM-bound. MySQL has a max-memory setting to limit the amount of RAM the MySQL server process is allowed to use. MySQL will then reserve that much RAM to use for queries. Not having enough RAM means that the number of concurrent queries is limited -- MySQL will put new incoming queries on hold as it finishes servicing the current ones. This action is what leads to the delays and timeouts you experience.


Currently, we've set max-memory to as much as we can on the server without compromising the disk cache to the point where the OS will thrash the hard disk like heck.

What we need is indeed more RAM, so we can bump up the max-memory, which will allow us to service database queries for all the users connected to the website at one time. Right now, web server capacity is greater than database server capacity, so a portion of requests are destined to time out :-/

randell6564
September 13th, 2006, 10:23 PM
I do not blame the admins of this forum but I do blame Canonical for not acting responsible and being ignorant.
Niether do I! Canonical is the culprit here! My GOD! Do they not see, or experience the same issues as us?!

What.,are they from another world? Do they not use the very same internet that we pion users do?!

steve.horsley
September 14th, 2006, 07:42 PM
Thanks for the explanation, djong. That makes some sense to me, and gives me hope that RAM alone can fix it.

The main concern to me is that there are lots of newcomers coming looking for help, and they are not getting the best we can offer when the forums are this slow - it must be frustrating for the question askers, and it sure means that those questions are going to be read and answered by fewer people than might be.

jdong
September 14th, 2006, 07:46 PM
We've changed the way database access is handled between our servers, and for now it seems to have evened the load a bit more. This should've kept the forums pretty snappy these past two days or so. Let us know how it feels.