| 11:52 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Seems a bit faster.
Only time the old site was particularly slow for me was when I edited a post I just made - there used to be a few second lag before refreshing to new message - it's just as quick as posting as normal now.
| 11:54 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Faster, so far as I can tell
| 11:57 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No errors and yes it seems faster. I always liked RackSpace and found their HTTP and FTP access to be extremely fast. Only problem we ever had was when a server (not ours) was hit with a DOS attack and it was making everyone's servers slow as heck (I forget the details). Also, make sure they aren't still blocking Slurp from their datacenter...hehe
| 12:05 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Very quick > still use dial up in the flat and it was noticebly faster - could tell the difference on 2mb ;)
| 12:09 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Noticeably faster. As mentioned, especially on editing where there used to be a long lag. I assume that was due to the file locks that would have to happen on an edit. I wonder if there's been a kernal update at the same time?
Or maybe you just improved it while typing out that couple of meg of code ;-)
No bugs/config issues found that aren't already on your list.
| 12:46 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
AH! Now I know why for several days I couldn't get into the forums. I thought I needed to pay something to continue viewing!
I think this is faster.
| 12:49 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Definitely faster. Is the load back up to pre-outage levels, or are we benefitting from the slow return of the community?
| 2:14 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Quite a bit faster. I noticed that the old server was really bogging down over the past several months.
Till missing the FOO listings from Oct 12 thru 23 inclusive on the new server however.
Are you still retriving data, or has some posts been lost for good.
Also, when you search Google and you get a hit from
webmasterworld, the link points to some differnt content than advertised. Have all your indexed links changed, as this is really going to have a content penalty on google for you.
| 2:17 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Considerably faster here in dialup land.
| 2:21 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Seemed a lot faster at the very beginning when it first went back up (perhaps due to growing traffic) but now seems similar to before.
I would love it though if the board could register ip addresses for people that are logged in so we do not get a 403 after a bit of time.
| 3:32 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
lgn1, thanks for the Foo tip - didn't know that.
| 3:48 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
it is noticably faster here as well
| 3:54 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It seems much faster here.
| 4:09 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Seems faster to me. In fact I normally can't even "followed through" on a click (let up on the button) before the next page has fully loaded. Okay, so that's a little exaggerated. Still, it's fast.
| 4:27 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't know... seems faster I think. It's always been pretty quick for me.
| 5:17 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Seems a bit faster
Most notably faster when you EDIT a post and resubmit which was a dog on the old server
| 6:54 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Pages always took a good few seconds to load here for me. Likewise when posting/editing. Now, from where I sit in London, it's zipping along superbly.
| 8:30 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
no question about it...
Very enjoyable from where I sit...(oh that reminds me..I better get up and move around...or they are going to be burying me with my office chair..)
"Most notably faster when you EDIT a post and resubmit which was a dog on the old server"
Yes...this is one area that is much improved...and I am testing it right now...(let's see..where's my stop watch...okay there it is..)
Less then 4 seconds on the edit reload...used to take in the 15 second range...
| 9:17 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A little bit faster for me here in Italy.
| 9:32 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
From Spain seems about the same, I'm on telefonica (:() dial-up.
Was faster, before everyone found out you were live again, LOL....
Seem to be busier now than in the days before.
Are you sure the crash wasn't a publicity stunt, LOL..
| 10:35 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Seems noticeably faster. What specs are the servers if you don't mind telling us (the geeks) ;)
| 1:08 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
2 x 3.2mhz xeon, 2gig, dual 72gig raid scsi.
| 3:46 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Nice! Definitely seems faster to me.
| 8:16 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It does seem a bit faster to me.
| 9:31 am on Oct 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Big difference, even on 2mb connection. And after editing a post the long wait has gone. Not that I post much ;-)
Good to see something positive come from your misfortunes.
| 3:47 pm on Oct 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Seems faster here in Hong Kong
Thank God you had the "opportunity" to change hosting
2 years ago I made comments about the old hosts on WW and had my post removed!
Still not all the bad things come to hurt you eh!
See you in Vegas
| 4:10 pm on Oct 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Much faster to me....(and umpteen times faster than searchengineworld.com was when it was getting overloaded.)
| 9:52 pm on Oct 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It seems to be noticably faster than before. Is it just the new server or you did some code/apache tweaking?
| 10:32 pm on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's definitely faster, no doubt about it. I really notice this at slower times, oddly enough, that's when I can see the actual page generation time, it's very fast, almost instant.
During heavy traffic times it's definitely faster, no doubt about it. But still only 32 bit cpus? What's with that?
| This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 (  2 ) > > |