ita, when you were adding in explicit closes, did you take a look at threadsuck? I'm actually reading this thread from the beginning to see what features we added and I noticed that we added it toward the beginning of this year. Since I don't know how threadsucking works, I thought that if it was a separate script it might have been missed in the latest check.
Zoe: Planet's coming up a mite fast. Wash: That's just cause, I'm going down too quick. Likely crash and kill us all. Mal: Well, that happens, let me know.
'Shindig'
Buffistas Building a Better Board
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
Kristen - Aug 20, 2003 2:50:29 pm PDT #4691 of 10000
§ ita § - Aug 20, 2003 3:12:19 pm PDT #4692 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Kristen, I added the close to the function that opens.
Open - run whatever query was supplied -- close ---- get to processing.
That's why I'm concerned/confused it hasn't made a big difference.
Kristen - Aug 20, 2003 4:02:02 pm PDT #4693 of 10000
Well, I emailed Steven to mention the change to the quote generator and asked him to let me know how much of a difference it makes over the next few days. I mean, if we were at say 150 connections, we should drop to 75 now.
Also, I agree it's worrisome. On the other hand, I can't see how we had 100 people posting at once, much less the same moment.
DXMachina - Aug 20, 2003 6:32:17 pm PDT #4694 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Shot in the dark. Do user sessions open connections to the database, or is that just strictly cookies and/or session variables?
Allyson - Aug 20, 2003 6:35:42 pm PDT #4695 of 10000
Wait, is this real-world child support, where the money goes to buy food for the kids, or MRA fantasyland child support where the women just buy Ferraris and cocaine? -Jessica
Here's my last xpost:
Why not move ALL closed threads off this board? Leave them up for ONE WEEK, no more than that. Then we put the in "The Attic."
We could have them hosted by Fangeek, at a pretty minimal price (I know da owners, I'll haggle). That should lighten the "click through" load on the server, substantially. The threads would be available for read only, just not on this board.
They don't have to be here.
DXMachina - Aug 20, 2003 6:45:45 pm PDT #4696 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Speaking of the archives, are the subdomains working yet so that I can get to the archives ftp? And if so, what address do I use?
Kristen - Aug 20, 2003 7:09:38 pm PDT #4697 of 10000
They are working again. If the FTP account is already set up, you should be able to login through ftp.buffistas.org.
§ ita § - Aug 20, 2003 7:27:19 pm PDT #4698 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
DX, you should be good with the old address -- holler if not.
Noumenon - Aug 20, 2003 7:27:30 pm PDT #4699 of 10000
No other candidate is asking the hard questions, like "Did geophysicists assassinate Jim Henson?" or "Why is there hydrogen in America's water supply?" --defective yeti
They are working again.
They are? Fangeek rocks!
RobertH - Aug 20, 2003 7:47:33 pm PDT #4700 of 10000
Disaffected college student
Assuming that the biggest trouble really is just that we occasionally have 100 people all calling the database at the same time--is there any way to limit that on our end, directly? Hit 50 open connections, and all subsequent attempts have to wait 5 seconds and check again? Or it is impossible to divorce the attempt from the actual connection? Or would such a solution be, in its own way, as (or more) taxing?
(It's been too long since I was actually studying this stuff.)