11
Herko
Re: XOOPS and server load
  • 2004/2/20 6:13

  • Herko

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 4238

  • Since: 2002/2/4 1


on a sidenote, why haven't two people with very large sites (compared to most) NOT put the URL's to those sites in their profiles? I'm curious as to which sites they are!

Herko

12
carnuke
Re: XOOPS and server load
  • 2004/2/21 10:17

  • carnuke

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 1955

  • Since: 2003/11/5


Thanks Heno for your reply, all is explained!
Quote:
(and I find it odd that you bumped after only 4 minutes! )


I hit send twice by mistake... you will see that posts cannot be deleted, only edited!!!!!!

Richard.

13
ylw633
Re: XOOPS and server load
  • 2004/4/8 21:55

  • ylw633

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 11

  • Since: 2004/2/19


sorry for disappearing for such a long time....

eventually we closed our forum to avoid being shutdown by isp. however, we are planing to re-open it tomorrow since nba playoff is coming (our site is a basketball related site). the question i have is, what is a better configuration for XOOPS to achieve optimal performance? currently our configuration is:

1. use persistent connection
2. take out site status block (such as "who's online")
3. disable session
4. set cache on pages (still need to experiment with cache expiration time)

any other suggestions? please help. thanks!!

by the way, our site is using 2.0.6 and is at http://www.roundballcity.com
the site is a basketball fan site that have editors contributing articles in traditional chinese about taiwanese basketball, nba, ncaa, and world basketball. the site is very famous in chinese basketball society (maybe top 5 chinese basketball fan site).

14
ylw633
We give up
  • 2004/4/14 16:13

  • ylw633

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 11

  • Since: 2004/2/19


today is a sad day.... we are suspended by our hosting company "lunarpages.com" because they said we used too much resource. we only use the news and newbb module, but XOOPS still can't handle our load.

xoops once again failed us, i guess we'll have to switch to postnuke, hopefully they perform better.

15
sunsnapper
Re: We give up

I think maybe your host failed you, not Xoops. I suspect you will find Postnuke will use even more resources.

In the end, the solution will probably be to find another host.

Let us know if we can help.

16
gstarrett
Re: We give up
  • 2004/4/14 17:41

  • gstarrett

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 174

  • Since: 2002/3/12


Quote:

ylw633 wrote:
today is a sad day.... we are suspended by our hosting company "lunarpages.com" because they said we used too much resource. we only use the news and newbb module, but XOOPS still can't handle our load.

xoops once again failed us, i guess we'll have to switch to postnuke, hopefully they perform better.


What does your host mean by "resource"? Processing is the obvious guess, but there a lot of things that factor into resource use from a system perspective: Bandwidth, disk space, IO use, number of connections. All those are significant in any discussion of resources. It would be helpful to at least understand what it is they think XOOPS is using too much of.

17
DonXoop
Re: We give up

I'd also add that persistent connections is usually unwise on a hosted server. Hosted servers typically run a higher number of server processes to handle the load which causes the persistent connections to grow and grow until there is one for every process. MySQL is very fast at connections and persistent mode gives no benefit to xoops. In fact it will slow things down when there are too many idle connections.

but there are a lot of other factors which we don't know about in particular for this case.

But enjoy the nukes..

18
ylw633
Re: We give up
  • 2004/4/14 18:28

  • ylw633

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 11

  • Since: 2004/2/19


actually it's the 2nd time they suspended us, the first time was two months ago that forced us to close forum. at that time we were using 2.0.5 and was NOT using pconnect, therefore this time we thought we used 2.0.6 and enabled pconnect, as well as cache (30 seconds for news and newbb page).

i think what they say about "resource" is computing resouce, we are allowed to have 200GB/mo transfer because we paid $40 a month, and lunarpages has quite a good reputation among hosting companies so i don't think it's them who failed us.

ever since we re-opened forum, there are times cpu usage will spike up and crash httpd and mysqld.

i don't really want to abandon XOOPS because we've been enjoyed it, but it's really sad we don't have other choices...

19
phatty
Re: We give up
  • 2004/4/14 19:56

  • phatty

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 70

  • Since: 2004/3/9 2


Hi, I run a postnuke site with approx. 1100 users and 20-30 users online at any one time. I can tell you through conversations with my host that PostNuke uses a LOT of resources. I also have a XOOPS site although it is MUCH smaller. So you may want to consider a new host as opposed to switching to PostNuke.


Jeff

20
ylw633
Re: We give up
  • 2004/4/14 21:40

  • ylw633

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 11

  • Since: 2004/2/19


i really don't get it... just phoned my ISP, and is pretty sure we are being kicked out. one thing i don't understand is, they told me the plan we are on only has 4-10 sites sharing 1 4-CPU 1024mb linux box. how can our site that uses XOOPS (primarily news and newbb module) still screw it up?

does anybody know what's the status of the server this site runs on? how about XOOPS configuration of this site? does this site use cache? pconnect?

we now have to look for another hosting company and are thinking about sharing a dedicate machine with a few people, but to know the fact that XOOPS took too much resource on a 4 cpu machine that only has 10 sites really shock me.

Login

Who's Online

391 user(s) are online (258 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)


Members: 0


Guests: 391


more...

Donat-O-Meter

Stats
Goal: $100.00
Due Date: Nov 30
Gross Amount: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Left to go: $100.00
Make donations with PayPal!

Latest GitHub Commits