Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by davorg (Chancellor) on Sep 27, 2001 at 12:58 UTC
You could consider visiting the Offering plate and doing what you can to help towards the purchase of a new server :) -- <http://www.dave.org.uk> "The first rule of Perl club is you don't talk about Perl club."	[reply]
Re: Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by meonkeys (Chaplain) on Sep 27, 2001 at 13:06 UTC
will do. Has hardware (or lack speedy thereof) been confirmed as the cause of the slowdowns? It would be cool to know that what I am donating would be explicity applicable to widen the bottleneck.	[reply]
Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by virtualsue (Vicar) on Sep 27, 2001 at 13:37 UTC
Donating is a great idea. In fact, it's almost your sacred duty if you derive a lot of benefit from this site. ;) However, I haven't been experiencing the sorts of load times that you are reporting. Are you sure the problem isn't network congestion on your end? Before we got control over Nimda we had some problems of that nature locally within our intranet. There could be a number of others reasons why PerlMonks seems slow to you that don't have anything directly to do with PerlMonks.	[reply]
(meonkeys: I scoff at Nimda) by meonkeys (Chaplain) on Sep 27, 2001 at 21:18 UTC
Pretty sure it's not Nimda... I try to keep away from IIS (and any M$ft stuff), and my router doesn't even flinch at the 200+ hits I get a day from Nimda'd and Code Red'd computers.	[reply]
Re: (meonkeys: I scoff at Nimda) by Ven'Tatsu (Deacon) on Sep 29, 2001 at 21:14 UTC
Take a look at http://www.renesys.com/projects/bgp_instability/ They can cause trouble up stream from a users with out directly affecting the user.	[reply]
Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by mirod (Canon) on Sep 27, 2001 at 13:00 UTC
Maybe go to the Offering Plate and help pay for bandwidth for the site?	[reply]
Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by echo (Pilgrim) on Sep 27, 2001 at 13:02 UTC
I don't know, but I assume that the site has become so popular that the hardware can't keep up. I would guess the best thing to do would be to donate.	[reply]
Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by CubicSpline (Friar) on Sep 27, 2001 at 16:34 UTC
I would be it's something to do with your end of the network. I have a *terrible* connection to PM from my work machine (going through WAN and proxy server), but my home machines load up lickity split. You could always do some ping, traceroute tests to see if you can find out where the bottleneck really is.	[reply]
(meonkeys: my traceroute to perlmonks.org) by meonkeys (Chaplain) on Sep 27, 2001 at 21:23 UTC
I'd say it looks relatively quick, with few hops... I'm beginning to think it's a problem is server-side... perhaps the speed of mod_perl or the database. # traceroute perlmonks.org traceroute to perlmonks.org (206.170.14.76), 30 hops max, 38 byte pack +ets 1 10.1.104.1 (10.1.104.1) 1.685 ms 1.406 ms 1.427 ms 2 sl1 (208.23.213.1) 6.966 ms 1.493 ms 6.799 ms 3 sl-gw13-sea-5-0-0-TS14.sprintlink.net (160.81.44.49) 9.257 ms 3. +381 ms 3.222 ms 4 sl-bb10-sea-1-2.sprintlink.net (144.232.6.1) 3.509 ms 3.303 ms +2.854 ms 5 sl-bb20-tac-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.41) 4.002 ms 4.191 ms + 4.047 ms 6 sl-bb20-sj-5-2.sprintlink.net (144.232.9.213) 27.155 m +s 22.249 ms 22.188 ms 7 sl-bb20-sj-8-2.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.146) 21.957 ms 22.663 m +s 21.801 ms 8 sl-sbcnetsrvc-4-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.217.30) 23.427 ms 22.2 +93 ms 22.335 ms 9 edge2-p6-0.snfc21.pbi.net (63.203.35.1) 23.397 ms 23.167 ms 23. +299 ms 10 ded1-fa12-0-0.snfc21.pbi.net (209.232.130.69) 24.067 ms 24.319 m +s 24.006 ms 11 vip-Union-Partners-Network.cust-rtr.pacbell.net (209.232.138.214) + 24.619 ms 27.099 ms 24.236 ms 12 union-3.upn.net (208.44.192.1) 24.478 ms 24.926 ms 24.572 ms 13 yoda.blockstackers.com (206.170.14.76) 23.753 ms 24.694 ms 24.2 +72 ms [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by rng (Acolyte) on Oct 01, 2001 at 18:55 UTC
I usually load pretty quickly. If your home machine loads quickly as well, probably isnt PM server problems. It points more towards local networks or local-side issues.	[reply]
Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by synapse0 (Pilgrim) on Sep 27, 2001 at 16:30 UTC
In general, I'm sure Code Red and Nimda (the newest in network propagating viruses) probably have something to do with it, and will continue to slow network traffic down for some time.. See your favourite antivirus/security site for more info... -Syn0	[reply]
Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by metafizz (Beadle) on Sep 28, 2001 at 23:34 UTC
I too, get about the same speed as you meonkeys, but I live in the UK and am using an 'el cheapo' ISP, so kind of expect it. Although Perlmonks is likely to be getting ever popular, I'd imagine the real bottleneck is with your ISP. I wonder if you'll get a better Perlmonks connection when you connect to the 'net through an alternative service provider?	[reply]
Re: Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by meonkeys (Chaplain) on Sep 29, 2001 at 03:21 UTC
It's going pretty dang fast today! Page load times are subsecond. Sheesh.	[reply]
Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by Colonel_Panic (Novice) on Oct 01, 2001 at 21:33 UTC
Here at work on a T1 and behind firewall, Perl Monks is the slowest site I visit semi-regularly. The 8 seconds others describe is about what I see. jm	[reply]
Re: Tortoise and Hare, or Trail of Beers by spartan (Pilgrim) on Oct 01, 2001 at 22:38 UTC
I am behind an OC3 here, and while I do not see 8 second load times, I do frequently see ~4-5 seconds. I can only assume it is server load. Because I have seen good days where it may take a second or two to load a page, and then I've seen days where the top end is about 6 seconds. I also know it is not my local network. Being an Admin here I enjoy a 100Mb full duplex connection to our network. I will reiterate what others have been saying though, DONATE. I get alot out of perlmonks, and if you do too then please give a little bit. Very funny Scotty... Now PLEASE beam down my PANTS!	[reply]