LPtP business discussion thread

[westofyou]

Would want to run that from a different server too I'd think.

Couldn't we just mirror it and replace it for day or 2 on the same server? I agree that another server would be a good test as well, but to see if the text based application was that much thinner than the current one on the same server is what I was getting at.

[ochre]

Yeah. That should be possible.

Really ought to be able to do that by copying the existing php files to a backup location and then modifying the "live" site. Monitor the impact on bandwidth and then restore the original files when ready. That would not require a whole lot of modifications. I misread your original post, thinking you wanted to see a parallel environment (simultaneous).

[TeamDunn]

Does the quick reply cause a heavy load on the server?

I don't know how many people use it, I never have...never thought about it! And on that note...could using the quick reply be better than using the regular reply feature? It would be one less page view right?

[ochre]

2 sides to that. Having the quick reply on each page increases the size of each page, but using the quick reply would use less bandwidth than clicking through to the advanced reply as it renders a new page.

[TeamDunn]

Thanks Ochre, As long as the Quick Reply is here I will use it then!

You guys are so good at this! (insert thumbs up smiley dude)

[westofyou]

I downloaded this page, it's on a 20 thread view. It came to 62 K.

There are 45 images tags in the page. The Post reply button and quote button are about 4 K together, each post has a quote button and a post reply button. They do the same thing and they account for 4 K per post per page.

[Red Leader]

What about edit, does that factor in there?

[ochre]

I downloaded this page, it's on a 20 thread view. It came to 62 K.

There are 45 images tags in the page. The Post reply button and quote button are about 4 K together, each post has a quote button and a post reply button. They do the same thing and they account for 4 K per post per page.

I think the browser only hits the server once for each of those images though. I think it caches the image and reuses the one from the cache.

[westofyou]

I think the browser only hits the server once for each of those images though. I think it caches the image and reuses the one from the cache.

Probably, however we could probably get them to 2 K as well as the submit and preview post (which I think I did anyway).

All of this doesn't have to be done asap either. But it's a good idea to get a laundry list of general site issues, image size reduction, defaults set to members that insure a constant measureable data output. Then perhaps schedlue a couple of test weeks for scenarios. Like "No HOF Board", "No NON Base", Non Base with no Last thread etc.

[westofyou]

What about edit, does that factor in there?

It leaves only in your own posts and all the buttons could stand to be reduced.

[pedro]

WOy, the usage stats aren't being update danymore. I sent a message to GIk about it.

[gonelong]

The HostPC.com logo on the bottom of each page is 4K! If they aren't paying for that, its got to go! At least reduce the image or replace it with a text link.

Also, the report bad post (little triangle under the username on a post) could probably be replaced by single link in the header at the top of a page. Slightly less than 1K per.

I like the little button that tells me if another user is online or not, but maybe that could be replaced by a hover over their username or some other place on the site. Also slightly less than 1K per.

GL

/all for now

[Boss-Hog]

First off, I want to thank ochre, woy, pedro, and anyone else I missed for their help in lowering bandwidth. But I don't want everyone to have to think "Should I get rid of my signature?", "Should I use one less smiley?", "Can we reduce this graphic by another 1K?" in order to save bandwidth. I realize that cumulatively, these things add up, but I don't think these small things are the cause of the problem, nor do I want to disable core board functions. I'd rather just pay the cost to upgrade to a dedicated server, if we can't find a way to conserve bandwidth by disabling a drain.

[pedro]

First off, I want to thank ochre, woy, pedro, and anyone else I missed for their help in lowering bandwidth. But I don't want everyone to have to think "Should I get rid of my signature?", "Should I use one less smiley?", "Can we reduce this graphic by another 1K?" in order to save bandwidth. I realize that cumulatively, these things add up, but I don't think these small things are the cause of the problem, nor do I want to disable core board functions. I'd rather just pay the cost to upgrade to a dedicated server, if we can't find a way to conserve bandwidth by disabling a drain.

We'll support whatever you want to do Boss. I do think it's instructive, at least for me, to get a grip on what the overhead issues straining bandwidth are, as I'm a software developer and have been doing mostly client server stuff and want to move more to the web environment.

In any event I'm confident that the community will support whatever it takes should we have to move to a dedicated server, which I feel we will have to do, probably sooner than later.

[Red Leader]

Can I ask a really stupid question now?

What does LPtP stand for?