Msg#: 2971 posted 10:44 pm on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)
You really have to appreciate the software WW runs also.
Another forum I hang out at is hosted at the same place. But the site is running a standard software and is loaded up with all the frills. Even though they get just a fraction of the traffic that WW does, that site runs a LOT slower. It's reliable as all get out, just slow.
It seems like good software like WW runs, on a strong server, works exceptionally well.
Msg#: 2971 posted 10:06 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)
Sorry to say this after 4 pages of positive reactions, but for me, it is MUCH slower. At the moment I am in Turkey, Istanbul on a decent 512kbit ADSL connection, but WW just doesn't load as quickly as it used to. It looks as if the page generation is fairly quick, but the connection to the server takes ages (= about 5-10 seconds for a single page load). Other pages I frequently visit load just as fast as they load back home in the Netherlands.
I'll repost when I am back in the Netherlands, where I will test the site on my 5mbit cable connection.
it certainly feels faster for me. but I'm in chicago and most pipes cross this city. a quick check proves that:
Time (US/Eastern)Checked FromResultKBytesSecsKbps 10/31/2005 19:03:31Chicago USA OK 44.0 0.60 603.04 10/31/2005 19:03:35Las Vegas USA OK 44.1 4.25 85.04 10/31/2005 19:03:32Atlanta USA OK 44.1 0.97 373.32 10/31/2005 19:03:32London UK OK 44.1 1.37 263.41 10/31/2005 19:03:32Oklahoma City USA OK 44.1 0.93 388.49 10/31/2005 19:03:35Hong Kong CHINA OK 44.1 3.72 97.09 10/31/2005 19:03:32Frankfurt GERMANY OK 44.1 1.13 320.90 10/31/2005 19:03:32Orlando USA OK 44.1 1.13 320.61
seems a bit slow from some places (Las Vegas and Hong Kong), but this could be due to the current traffic.
as for the server spec: that's nice server! I run a vb forum (highly optimized) with 6000+ concurrent user at all times (users and bots) and it does just fine. I dont know how many users are on WW at the same time, but I think you have plenty room to grow...
with 6000+ concurrent user at all times (users and bots) and it does just fine
Heh -- let me know how it does when you get 6,000 users concurrent from a TCP point of view (that is, 6,000 actual TCP connections open at once). Defining "session" as "saw some traffic from you in the last few hours" and "concurrent" as overlapping "sessions" can make it sound like a server is doing a fantastic job :-).