Hi,

I've read some posts/articles indicating that NewBB2 runs significantly slower than NewBB1, especially when there is moderate to high traffic visiting the forum.

I was wondering if CBB has addressed this issue? Does CBB run faster or more efficiently than NewBB2?

Also, is CBB debugged enough to run on a full production site?

Dave

Hi jdseymour,

Thanks for the link. Your web site looks great!

I will take your advice and wait for the latest version of AMS.

I was wondering something else. Can the standard XOOPS news module and AMS co-exist in the same installation? In other words, can I use both the news module and AMS concurrently? I wouldn't think there would be a conflict, but just want to make sure.

Thanks,
Dave

Hi,

I'm considering trying out the Article Management System (AMS 2.2) module. Does anyone know of any active web sites that use AMS, so that I can check out the features?

Thanks for any help,
Dave

Hi Brash,

Thank you for the information about your web site. It certainly gives me a better idea about bandwidth requirements.

Are you on a shared host or a dedicated server? And, how does your site perform at 18000 page views per day?

Dave

Does anyone use simplehost.com to host their XOOPS site? If so, what is your opinion of their service?

They have a good looking plan, but I don't have any information regarding how well they perform.

Dave

I found this site, which helps to determine bandwidth requirements.

http://www.newbienet.com/site_management/webhost_bandwidth_calculator.php

I would be interested to know some real numbers/stats for an actual high traffic XOOPS site. I think this would help us all better evaluate the different hosting plans available, since bandwidth is a critical factor to consider when choosing a web plan. Maybe xoops.org or another high traffic XOOPS web site will share their web site statistics with us.

For example, I would be interested to know how many people visit xoops.org per day, how many pages are viewed on average per visitor, average file size of a page, and how much disk space is utilized. I would guess that xoops.org is a high traffic site, and thus the stats for this site would provide some insight into what we should be looking for in a web host (especially if we aspire to have a high traffic XOOPS site in the future).

It would also be helpful to see the statistics of moderate and low traffic web sites, so that XOOPS users of all sizes and traffic volumes will be able to find the most well suited hosting plan for their site.

Without having any kind of guide for what we may need for bandwidth and disk space, it would be very easy to pay too much for bandwidth/space we don't need, or run out of bandwidth/space because we didn't choose a host with enough capacity.

Dave

Hi,

I'm trying to get an idea of how efficiently XOOPS will function on a shared hosting plan, at different traffic volumes.

Is there anyone with a moderate or high traffic XOOPS site running on a shared hosting plan? If so, approximately how many visitors come to your site per day and per hour on average (if you are willing to share that information)? How efficiently does your XOOPS site run at this traffic volume? Any other traffic statistics you are willing to share would be helpful too. It would be great to be able to view the web site too. I know I'm asking for a lot.

Does anyone know if Xoops.org is running on a shared host or dedicated server? Are there any traffic statistics for this site available?

I'm considering a particular hosting service for my next XOOPS site, and someone suggested that I send them some estimated traffic statistics, so that they can place my web site on an appropriate server (which will best handle my estimated traffic), or determine whether their system can handle my site. However, I cannot accurately estimate my traffic statistics yet, since the site isn't even running yet. I would like to present the hosting service with moderate to high end traffic numbers, which have been proven to run efficiently on other shared hosting plans. I'm planning on doing a lot of PR and marketing for the site, so I expect that the traffic will at least be in the moderate range.

Any information would be appreciated.

Dave

UPDATE

Well, I did some experimenting, and the overlap problem only occurs when I set the align property in the <img> tag to "Left". Although, it could do it with a right alignment too, but I didn't check that. When I set the alignment to "middle" or did not include the align property, there was no problem. However, I need to use the align property with a left setting.

My first solution was to add a line of text a few lines beyond the end of the original content, such as contact information or an email address link, etc. However, that really is not a good solution, since I'm forced to add stuff that really isn't necessary. Also, if someone's browser displays pages in very small fonts, then the problem may occur again, especially if the text shrinks so much that it is no longer rendered below the photograph. Not likely, but I wouldn't sleep well knowing that this could still happen in some unusual cases. First impressions count with new web visitors.

Anyway, I've come up with a much better solution, which many of you probably already know. However, I'm still fairly new to all of this, so it was an important discovery for me. My solution was to put the text and image into a simple HTML table, and insert the entire table into the block. Just remember to set the content type of the block to HTML. With the text, image, and align property embedded within the table, there is no overlapping.

It is a little more tedious this way, but when you have an image as the last rendered content in a block, it avoids the overlap problem. If you are not including an image or the image is not rendered at the end of the content, then you don't need to bother with an HTML table.

By the way, I did notice that using a table resolved some other overlap problems too. When the browser window is very narrow, I've noticed that block text sometimes overlaps the right border of the block. This does not happen when embedding tables in the blocks. I'm wondering if this takes care of some of the overlap problems, which occur in older browsers with many of the themes. I know that it is mainly a CSS issue, but it could be that this helps solve it. Although, I've not tested that possibility.

Dave

Chainsaw,

Yes, your site is displaying a similar overlap. My only solution is to put text after the image, but this is a very restrictive solution. When I get some time, I'm going to upload some other themes, to see if the actual theme code is causing the problem.

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

Beejay,

My site is pretty much doing the same thing as Chainsaw's site.

Dave

Hi Chainsaw,

I formatted the photograph with HTML tags. Interestingly, the problem only occurs when the photograph is the final piece of content in a block. When I add some text after the photograph, there is no longer any overlapping.

I checked this out with the default theme too, and noticed the same problem (although it was not as bad as the other theme I used). Thus, I'm really not sure if this is related to the style.css code, related to code higher up somewhere, or a combination of both.

The simple solution is to never have a graphic or photograph being the final piece of content in a block. Although, this presents a design restriction that could be very limiting.

I may try some other themes, to deterimine whether this is a style.css problem or something else.

Dave