Remedy for downtime

[Steve Winer]

Here is a remedy for downtime and "server busy" messages. Eliminate some of the 23,000 members who don't post. Or, just close down registration and let no one join anymore. 23,000 members. Way too many. Ive seen people that registered a year ago and never posted. ELIMINATE THESE PEOPLE.

 

[ainwood]

I don't think this has any effect on the server at all.

 

[Steve Winer]

The majority of members just surf and never post. They are just here to look at problems of other people so they can better their game. If even a quarter of them surf at the same time, then of course you are going to get server busy. Sheesh, isn't 23,000 members enough? Or, may I suggest to TF that Civfanatics should get software (update of vBulletin) to accomodate these 23,000 members?

 

[Chieftess]

I don't think it would either. Since, by not coming, you don't use up the extra bandwidth (and server memory for the SQL queries).

 

[Thunderfall]

I think I am responsible for the last night's downtime. The database crashed when I was editing forum descriptions and re-ordering forum last night...

I will try to leave the forum alone as much as possible in the future.

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by Thunderfall
I think I am responsible for the last night's downtime. The database crashed when I was editing forum descriptions and re-ordering forum last night...

Stuff happens, don't worry about it

I will try to leave the forum alone as much as possible in the future.

Nahhh... keep doing what you are doing... which is providing a great site for gamers to come to and enjoy. So what if every once in a there is a problem. It's a small price to pay for what you provide the community.

Keep up the hard work, and thanks.

 

[Becka]

You could delete all the 0 post members, or send out an email saying "if you don't want your account deleted, post by such and so date or your account will be terminated". Doubt it would help, though. And guests will be here wether they post or not.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I think you're going at it at the wrong way. What shld be done is to get a better server, technical support or BBS s/w or all of them to ensure better and more reliable forum performance, rather than chopping members and stopping ppl fr joining....

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I was going to suggest this today also. Alot of people sign up and fill out their profile and stop using the site after a few weeks/months. Surely those profiles take up some room? Maybe accounts that are inactive 90 days or whatever length could go in the hopper??? This would also make it easier to scan the registered users list and would make the list of birthdays more relevant to all of us...

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I was going to suggest this today also. Alot of people sign up and fill out their profile and stop using the site after a few weeks/months. Surely those profiles take up some room? Maybe accounts that are inactive 90 days or whatever length could go in the hopper??? This would also make it easier to scan the registered users list and would make the list of birthdays more relevant to all of us...

I don't think this is fair at all. There are a few people who can't come here for extended periods because of job commitments / sickness etc. Is it fair to trash their account because of this?

Secondly, I presume that the server load problems are not because of the amount of members that are registered, but because of the number of people browsing here at any one time (bandwidth vs server space). If you trash these people's accounts, they can still browse as guests, and the server load will be the same. In fact, it might be higher with all the people re-registering

We do actually get a lot of guests here. As I type, there are 45 members and 55 guests here!

 

[Kemal]

Axing people who don't post for 90 days would have meant that , for example, starlifter's account would have been axed once already, and nearing it's second deletion.

I think we can all agree that he doesn't fall into the category of an indifferent, non-active poster. It would also mean someone else being able to register under his name and start making spam/offensive posts.

We have already seen on other sites that there are people who think it's cool to do this.

 

[Steve Winer]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
I think you're going at it at the wrong way. What shld be done is to get a better server, technical support or BBS s/w or all of them to ensure better and more reliable forum performance

Once again, I state that an update of vBulletin is needed. Isn't it free if you already have vBulletin?

 

[duke o' york]

The remedy for downtime is more complex than my response to it: Just go to Gamecatcher or 'poly or talk to real people or play Civ (2)!
It was what, a day's worth at the most (depending on when you start and finish posting), so it's no great loss unless your life depends upon posting here.

 

[Padma]

Originally posted by Steve Winer
Once again, I state that an update of vBulletin is needed. Isn't it free if you already have vBulletin?

Well, if you've paid much attention to Site Feedback, you will know that TF is planning to switch to VB3.0 "soon", I think before he puts his new server up next spring. Speaking of the new server, that should also help with server busy problems.

Originally posted by duke o' york
The remedy for downtime is more complex than my response to it: Just go to Gamecatcher or 'poly or talk to real people or play Civ (2)!
It was what, a day's worth at the most (depending on when you start and finish posting), so it's no great loss unless your life depends upon posting here.

You're absolutely right, duke!

When I experience a forum outage, that's exactly what I do (except replace (2) with (3) ). This may be my favorite site, but if it's down, there are others I can visit, or other things I can do.

 

[Dell19]

But not post? Surely everyone would die or at least be extremely unhappy?

"Axing people who don't post for 90 days would have meant that , for example, starlifter's account would have been axed once already, and nearing it's second deletion."

It would only happen to people who have 0 posts and haven't used their account for 90 days.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Kemal
Axing people who don't post for 90 days would have meant that , for example, starlifter's account would have been axed once already, and nearing it's second deletion.

I think we can all agree that he doesn't fall into the category of an indifferent, non-active poster. It would also mean someone else being able to register under his name and start making spam/offensive posts.

If he has more than one post (which he does) he wouldn't be deleted.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Steve Winer
ELIMINATE THESE PEOPLE.

My, my, I though I was supposed to be the bloodthirsty assasin here. :slay:

 

[Thunderfall]

We don't need any remedy for downtime, since it's working pretty good now after the server upgrade. No one has complained about server busy messages in a while!

Deleting inactive accounts certainly won't help. The entire users database table takes up less than 5 MB last time I check...

 

[cgannon64]

23,000 isn't alot. I know of forums that have 23,000 on AT ONE TIME. They are professional websites, of course, and have huge powerful servers.

I don't recommend this idea. I haven't gotten a server busy message since the upgrade. Its really just the number of people on at one time, right?

CG

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Yes all hail the ease of access these past days since the changeover. Haven't seen a server too busy in quite some time. You are doing a great job Thunderfall!