FTR, here’s the numbers as to who’s on right this second:
359 members and 240 guests
“guests” = nonpayers.
Most guests do not have posting privileges, but no doubt some are still in their 30 day trial and do have posting access. Don’t have exact numbers for that, though.
your humble TubaDiva
I wouldn’t consider that a safe assumption. My best guess is that the server is underpowered for the task of running these boards. Bandwidth is pretty cheap. And with the amount of money this board rakes in on subscriptions, this should very easily cover the bandwidth costs. Particularly as these board pages have little bandwidth hogging graphics.
Anyone know the exact technical specs of the server these boards run on? And, I presume they are on a dedicated server, correct?
I couldn’t tell you the specs, but I have a picture here. 
Heh. 
I doubt that is the problem. Based on the revenue the Reader gets from subscriptions to these boards, I have to figure that either the Reader is making serious profit from the subscribers here, or is totally mismanaging costs of running this board. Neither decent servers or bandwidth are all that expensive.
TubaDiva, I’ve been a member for many years…I’m also a senior engineer with a highly respectable, reputable database company. 600 users is not an issue with even a modest server.
I’d guess that I’d been lurking here since 1999 and joined in Sept-Oct of 2000. This messageboard has been slow in the past because of a MUCH greater input, I’ll agree…I’ll also surmise that the speed hasn’t proportionately increased since the membership fees have begun.
I’ll put a modest estimate that this server is still on a 486/66 with about 64mb’s of RAM.
-KN
Would it have anything to do with WHAT those 600 users were doing at a given moment? If all six hundred clicked on a thread at the same instant, what happens? If 25 of them hit the “search” button at the same instatant to search all the previous threads in the database, what happens? I doubt that most other boards have a database of threads that are both searchable and “searched” as much as ours does.
But, I’m just asking since you are the expert. I have absolutely NO experience in this field. It would be great to have someone tell us what may be going on.
Something is seriously wrong with how this board is being run, or the Chicago Reader is milking us subscribers big time for profit. This board has too few users that it couldn’t be handled by a modest server by 2005 standards. Nor would bandwidth be an issue. If the problem isn’t the Reader bleeding this board dry, the Powers That Be around here should hire me to manage this board. With me in charge, it’d be lightning quick, and well under budget.
600 people just aren’t going to click on a thread at the same instant. No need to worry about things that will never happen. Lots of searches at once could be problematic. Can this board be configured to allow only so many searches at a time, and others get an error message to try again later? Or perhaps searches can be allocated a maximum about of processor usgage? Slow searches would be far better than slow loading of threads.
And, if you want answers then you need to post the server specs and monthly bandwidth used so we can figure out exactly what is going on. I’m betting on a totally inadequate server.
Note: I am not in the “Mods don’t know how to use a server” camp. I think that no one would mismanage a board this long, and that it is actually a lot harder than people think. I believe they are doing the best jorb they can.
However, given the that Kaotic Newtral seems to have some experience here, may I suggest that perhaps something is slowing down the server, such as some unnoticed adware, or is that too naive?
Samclem, I’m not the expert, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn last night…really…(I really did and I always wanted to use that!). Seriously though, if you’d like to ping me offline at kaoticnew (at) hotmail.com … I would happily explain to you how a multi-threaded database works and how applications can use a cpu/memory/network to its full extent. I can’t really say much more…it’s not a trade secret or anything…just that a LOT of folks could probably guess where I work and who I work for by describing it here.
Thanks,
KN.
Hi Scott. As you know…I don’t AT ALL represent or have anything to do with the boards. AdWare would be far off base though…(IMHO) this would seem to be either an indexing issue or straight SQL. I ABSOLUTELY don’t know all the issues that Jerry has been dealing with over the years but I offer my complete support…along with the VERY unofficial and unsupported help from my team.
My presumption is the moderators here are just that: moderators. I wouldn’t expect them to be highly knowledgeable about running servers, and what the costs would be. My guess is the problem is those in charge of the Chicago Reader. Either they don’t know how to run a board like this (quite possible, it isn’t like they specialize in that business), or they are bleeding this board dry of money. When the Reader was paying for this board out of their own pocket, little surprise to me the spent as little as possible. However, with all that subscription money they are raking in, they should be able to have this board run fast and still make a profit.
Well, here’s where our pen-pal stops. In my very limited opinion, The Chicago Reader isn’t taking anyone for anything. This was a service that they were actually losing money on. A couple years ago, someone hatched a plan to keep this board going before it fell off of the face of the earth. Some of the most intelligent folks in the world are debating, commisserating, joking and just having a blast here. This ‘IS’ the best place on the net to hang out and just ‘chill’ a while.
Don’t take me down with you ‘homie’…I have more respect for this place than that. The Chicago Reader let us stay when they couldn’t afford it…they let us chat when we were killing them…as far as I’m concerned…If I lived in Chi-Town…I’d subscribe just for the last 4 years.
Yea, I stayed in a Holiday Inn…express.
Thanks for the response. I may take you up on your offer.
And, in your later reponse to Scott? you mention the word indexing. Don’t take anything I say to be gospel, but I"ve heard that word before. And not in a good way.
SC
Note I stated the alternate possibility the Reader was just incompetent at running a board like this. Maybe they aren’t making lots of money.
Here TubaDiva say there are 3,473 current subscribers. Assuming they pay an everage of $10 a year (reasonable if a lot of the users are paying the half off rate, that would be $34,730 revenue a year, or $2894 a month. I find it hard to believe this board could be run on a rented dedicate server for $200 a month, or even less. (It makes no sense to buy a server unless the cost would be cheaper than renting.)
There of course would be the cost of a computer geek to act as boardmaster, and upload and maintain files and such. And also someone who would handle accounting for collecting and maintaining the subscriber base. But these would be very much part time positions. I find it hard to imagine this couldn’t be done for $2694 a month in wages.
Lol, I understand where you’re coming from. Nope, not that kind of indexing at all. Nice and easy…I’m sure Jerry and many folks here know what I mean. I do have a few dudes who work with me that I’m sure would be happy to spend a few cycles with me on trying to figure out the best optimization paths for the rough queries that Jerry has been tasked on.
Oh, Sam…in case you were whooshing me…here is the first indexing b-tree result that I got off of google… B-Trees … It’s really not that complicated, it works mostly towards a search down the middle and where to go from there. Well, damn…actually, the second link is better. Damn Google! http://www.semaphorecorp.com/btp/algo.html
-KN
Wasn’t whooshing you that I know of. Thanks for the links. This could keep me up all night.
Long ago, C. Northcote Parkinson wrote Parkinson’s Law; “Work expands to fill the time available.”
Now, an update is in order; (Nott’s Corrolary) “Message board usage expands to fill the bandwidth available.”