Re (tilly) 1: Hey rocky, watch me pull time out of my hat...

Without access to logs and debugging you really can't tell anything about where the problem is likely to be.

For instance one that I was part of trying to track down was finally tracked down last week to Linux machines being set to try to communicate at 10 or 100 on an ethernet, while the Cisco router was set to 100. Most of the time it worked, but occasionally it messed up, causing a dropped connection and a socket hanging for 5 minutes (which is what Apache's timeout was set to). Configure the Linux machines to only try to talk at speed 100 and the network problem went away. Would you have ever thought of that?

I wouldn't have. The person who figured it out started in the system logs and noticed a lot of TCP/IP errors, then went from there...

Comment on Re (tilly) 1: Hey rocky, watch me pull time out of my hat...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re (tilly) 1: Hey rocky, watch me pull time out of my hat... by joealba (Hermit) on Feb 19, 2002 at 05:25 UTC
Yeah, I would have thought of that, tilly.. :) But, only because something like that just happened to me too! Cheap 10/100 autosensing hub + autonegotiating 10/100 switch on a 10 MB/s network = Collision Fest 2002. Regarding the lag -- I am certain that page size is NOT the issue. It's the generation of the page that's the issue. The site is completely dynamic. The site works great for me at night (EST), but chunks at other times -- generally when there are lots of monks active. So, there's a bound somewhere -- most directly caused either by hardware or code. The admins & coding monkeys know that there's a scalability problem. They have the logs, the access, and the knowledge -- They'll fix it. I have faith in that. (joealba trails off into a perlmonks "I have a dream..." speech preaching about a faster site) I'm sure they know that any one of the monks would be glad to donate their time to review code for bottlenecks, myself included.	[reply]
Re: Re (tilly) 1: Hey rocky, watch me pull time out of my hat... by belg4mit (Prior) on Feb 18, 2002 at 19:08 UTC
Exactly, that's along the lines of what I was alluding too (even if I wasn't explicit) in the last paragraph. And for the record, no that wouldn't have occured to me while debugging. Although when setting it up I probably would have explicitly set it to 100 to match :-D. And the other thing I was trying to allude to was there are some things that are just generally helpful in the long run. `-- perl -pe "s/\b;([st])/'\1/mg"`	[reply]