SFN Server Issues

[iNow]

Quite frequently lately pages seem to be taking a long time to load, and often fail completely. It just cycles and cycles and cycles... Anyone else noticed performance issues with the SFN server lately? Is there anything that can be done to address it?

[hypervalent_iodine]

I've had this happen to me as well. It often takes for ever to load or just returns a 500 error and can take up to a half hour to go back to normal.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If it happens around the time you posted this thread, that's backups running. If it happens other times, there's something wrong I should fix. Do you know when you experience the problem?

[Phi for All]

I had it happen on and off all day today, a bit yesterday during the day.

[hypervalent_iodine]

It happened to me over the weekend a fair bit and last week as well.

[CaptainPanic]

I have not experienced any problems at all, but I may be online at different times than those who did have problems.

[immortal]

It gave a Http 500 error when the site was accessed via mobile and it has slowed down a lot, especially the mobile version, at first it was fast.

[michel123456]

Yes. http 500 error yesterday evening here (GMT+2). local hour 19.00 IIRC.

 

What a relief! I don't have to throw my old laptop to the garbage.

[iNow]

Cap'n - I haven't been tracking the timing of these events. I usually just move on to other things and other sites and come back later. If/when it happens again, I'll take note and share it with you here. As others have shared, though... It's been pretty frequent since the software upgrade.

[iNow]

60 seconds ago... 11:24pm CST

[michel123456]

60 seconds ago... 11:24pm CST

So that makes in my time...scratch scratch converting CST to UTC / GMT then adding (or substracting ?) my + 2.00 not making any mistake with pm (not "greek pm" that is Pro-Messeemeri - προ μεημερι = before midday=a.m.)

 

What a mess. Time zone converter has 5 CST's.

 

-------------

Stupid, the conversion is done by SFN. Just had to look at the post time.

Edited February 1, 2013 by michel123456

[CaptainPanic]

Stupid, the conversion is done by SFN. Just had to look at the post time.

We'll just say that your internal server was lagging a bit at 11:20 CET.

[michel123456]

We'll just say that your internal server was lagging a bit at 11:20 CET.

Yes and no.

I am EET not CET

For the rest yes.

[michel123456]

60 seconds ago... 11:24pm CST

So

Since we know your location (under your avatar), and since we know the hour of your post (mentioned in the upper left corner), the 11.24pm CST is redundant.

you could have posted "60 seconds ago' and that's enough information.

[iNow]

Since we know your location (under your avatar), and since we know the hour of your post (mentioned in the upper left corner), the 11.24pm CST is redundant.

you could have posted "60 seconds ago' and that's enough information.

And yet instead I chose to convey the information to Cap'n in more than one way to make it as easy as possible for him to determine timing. What's your point?

[michel123456]

Science.

I was thinking about something completely different. Nothing against your post.

[iNow]

Right now, and for at least the past five minutes

[moth]

I was having some 500 errors and slow response times after the upgrade, but chrome browser updated itself and I haven't had any more issues. I wonder if it could have been browser related?

[michel123456]

5 minutes from now.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I was having some 500 errors and slow response times after the upgrade, but chrome browser updated itself and I haven't had any more issues. I wonder if it could have been browser related?

500 errors aren't browser related; only the server can give them.

 

Right now, and for at least the past five minutes

Backups. I wonder if I can make them less painful on the server.

[iNow]

500 errors aren't browser related; only the server can give them.

 

Backups. I wonder if I can make them less painful on the server.

That would be welcomed. It happened again just now.

 

Correction: IS happening right now

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Looks like there's not much we can do about it. We may upgrade to a new server in a few months, in which case there are things we can do to limit the effect of backups (e.g. have a separate disk drive to write backups to), but until then we're stuck.

 

I've made a couple changes but I don't know how much help they'll be.

[StringJunky]

Looks like there's not much we can do about it. We may upgrade to a new server in a few months, in which case there are things we can do to limit the effect of backups (e.g. have a separate disk drive to write backups to), but until then we're stuck.

 

I've made a couple changes but I don't know how much help they'll be.

 

You are probably doing it already, but have you set the backups to be done when the member traffic is usually at its lowest point on average?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You are probably doing it already, but have you set the backups to be done when the member traffic is usually at its lowest point on average?

Good point. I had set the backup time based on some guesswork about when people are likely to be online, but I just compared that to the real statistics. The backups should now run a few hours later, when fewer members are online.

[iNow]

Thanks for taking steps to try improving the situation, everyone. Appreciate it.