DailyDi Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 In order to try and get the board running like it used to I am going to be doing some pruning over the next few days. The current database is over 2GB in size, and that is a huge amount of data that has to be searched through and maintained by the server. 1 Link to comment
square_duck Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I guess that means I'm toast as well.... catch ya lat Link to comment
Shawnie Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 nuuuuu quack quack you ants going no where Link to comment
PaddedPat Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 DailyDi, Out of curiosity, did DD also disable Tapatalk access during the purge? I'm having issues logging in through the TT app. :-/ Link to comment
DailyDi Posted May 8, 2015 Author Share Posted May 8, 2015 We disabled it a while back due to security concerns. Putting the updated TT back is on my todo list Link to comment
PaddedPat Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Cool. Was just curious. TT can be pretty glitchy at times anyway, so I was hoping it wasn't simply a "dumb user" issue, lol... Link to comment
Dill_Pickle Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 2GB isn't really that big... but, if it's a general problem, I don't think many pre-2010 posts are getting much reading, especially places like the newbie nursery. Link to comment
DailyDi Posted May 15, 2015 Author Share Posted May 15, 2015 2GB is a huge amount for a database (mySql) since it's 2Gb of TEXT not images - That's about a million pages worth of text. Usernames, passwords, posts, warnings, logs, etc... that has to be searched through for every hit by every user Link to comment
Dill_Pickle Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Funny...sounds like the database needs some additional metadata and optimization...like an index of where each post number is stored, and lists of post numbers for each forum. Link to comment
InD Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 You can't just go and modify the database. Link to comment
Dill_Pickle Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) I do realize that 2 gig of text is a problem if it isn't well-indexed and lives on a disk that takes 5 or 10 ms per read due to the spin, all bytes are created equal, and access times are multiplied by 200 or so concurrent users. Edited May 26, 2015 by Dill_Pickle Link to comment
Little BabyDoll Christine Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Well, there goes my "johnny_7_o.m.a" LB account that I have maintained under the radar since 1997. Just do not tell Rachel Elimy or Joanne; please Link to comment
nlricharduk Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Please I want to stay on here. I love this place. Link to comment
Dill_Pickle Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Richard: The sort of optimisation DailyDi is doing isn't likely to delete the accounts of anyone who cares enough to log in from time to time and post or chat. Link to comment
Little BabyDoll Christine Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 The next step of course, is to get rid of some really old threads that no one will miss, or, I have proposed simply making them slower to access so that the material that is accessed constantly can be accessed more quickly. Link to comment
Elfy Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I'd be somewhat in favour of practically every thread being wiped out if it fixed the problem. Link to comment
Dill_Pickle Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Elfking: For the purposes of the discussion, either a lot of people or something automatic must make choices as to which posts and/or threads are important. Link to comment
Baby Brian Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Does that not kind of defeat the unoffical policy that it is better to zombie a necro than to start a new thread that says the same thing. Speaking of starting needless threads, I wonder about the feasibility of a list of Frequently Used Threads This has actually come up before. The general consensus was the exact opposite. It is better to leave an old thread and start a new one. As I recall, the reasoning behind this was that general attitudes, and society beliefs, tend to shift over time. What was once relevant to a topic can become completely irrelevant in just a couple of years. There is also the problem of hijacking someone's old thread when it is actually better to start your own. Personally I like the idea of having older topics archived in some way that would still allow us to see a snap shot of how things used to be. Link to comment
Little BabyDoll Christine Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I think the argument FOR nec's is that new persons come in and if a thread already exists for something they are interested in, they do not have to create a new one with all that implies for processsing labels and search engine work. If you are going to keep them as archives, that's extra work. Work is a function of effort and time: Effort is an expenditure of energy and time is money. Also, there is an opportunity cost since that energy and time could be used elsewhere I vaguely recall visiting a forum that had a sub-forum for the necroes I guess it is a function of how dynamic your membership is over time and how much expansion you expect. From what I see here, Boomers (1946-65) are statistically very under-represented here both membership-wise and as a %age of total population. Especially in relation to DPF circa 1985 Link to comment
Dill_Pickle Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Christine: In discussing how old threads should be handled, never forget that it is a discussion about what happens to people, not the search engines. Link to comment
Baby Brian Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Christine: In discussing how old threads should be handled, never forget that it is a discussion about what happens to people, not the search engines. Whether threads should be necro'd as opposed to restarted should depend on how much work the humans, that is the readers and the writers end up doing, and what those humans get out of the experience. Some kind of usage or accessed-based decision making that would place the really stale threads in a read-only archive and remove them from the paths taken by the main forum acesses is what I am advocating for. I'm not sure that the decision shouldn't be to archive everything and start over. A lot of this depends on what DailyDi has available to him at what cost. Dill, I'm in agreement with you on this. It would be nice to see it be an automatic process though, or at least one that is easy to do. There is a crap load (official unit of measure for dd) of very old threads, and I can't see having to go through each one to archive it would be the right way to go. No idea how something like that could be implemented though, and like you said it would all depend on how Mike wants to go with it. Still, I'd hate to see all of that content completely wiped out, even if I may never end up seeing any of it again any ways. Link to comment
Little BabyDoll Christine Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I suppose if you could archive it and if someone wanted to re-open that subject, a link to the inactive threads could be put in the original post of the new thread. then to you might just want to delete tim-locked threads like the various date-specific munch or other meeting threads or my "The Land Unknown": I should have put that in my status updated then I could have deleted it on Sunday. And someone mentioned the gazillion "Hi" threads in the Newbie Nursery Link to comment
DailyDi Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 Right now it is the Roly Play forum that is sucking up resources. May need to start pruning the abandoned threads in there Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now