1. Web Site Performance Degradation
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Apr 24, 2014
- 1684 views
It seems the web site is performing pretty badly these days. Clicking on a forum post link takes up to 10 seconds or more to appear. Has something changed recently to cause this? Anybody know how to run performance testing on the site?
Maybe it's just me...
2. Re: Web Site Performance Degradation
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 24, 2014
- 1676 views
It seems the web site is performing pretty badly these days. Clicking on a forum post link takes up to 10 seconds or more to appear. Has something changed recently to cause this? Anybody know how to run performance testing on the site?
Maybe it's just me...
I think this is just an issue with our provider. Considering how cheap this host is, well, you get what you pay for.
# ping google.com PING google.com (74.125.228.72) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=29.2 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=3 ttl=50 time=29.1 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=4 ttl=50 time=28.8 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=9 ttl=50 time=29.1 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=10 ttl=50 time=29.0 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=12 ttl=50 time=29.1 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=15 ttl=50 time=30.5 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=16 ttl=50 time=30.7 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=20 ttl=50 time=29.5 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=21 ttl=50 time=29.2 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=22 ttl=50 time=29.3 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=25 ttl=50 time=29.3 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=26 ttl=50 time=29.2 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=30 ttl=50 time=29.5 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=31 ttl=50 time=29.2 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=32 ttl=50 time=29.4 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=37 ttl=50 time=29.4 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=40 ttl=50 time=29.3 ms 64 bytes from iad23s07-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.228.72): icmp_seq=43 ttl=50 time=29.3 ms --- google.com ping statistics --- 44 packets transmitted, 19 received, 56% packet loss, time 43682ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 28.843/29.421/30.762/0.464 ms #
3. Re: Web Site Performance Degradation
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Apr 25, 2014
- 1644 views
Should we pay a little more?
This is probably just intermittent, right? Because now it seems better...
4. Re: Web Site Performance Degradation
- Posted by ArthurCrump Apr 28, 2014
- 1505 views
Should we pay a little more?
This is probably just intermittent, right? Because now it seems better...
It does appear to be intermittent. It was slow again this morning, after being reasonably quick for a while.
Could it be a DNS problem because it has been moved recently?
Arthur
5. Re: Web Site Performance Degradation
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 28, 2014
- 1486 views
Should we pay a little more?
This is probably just intermittent, right? Because now it seems better...
It does appear to be intermittent. It was slow again this morning, after being reasonably quick for a while.
Could it be a DNS problem because it has been moved recently?
Arthur
It wasn't moved recently? Why would you think it was?
6. Re: Web Site Performance Degradation
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) Apr 28, 2014
- 1489 views
It wasn't moved recently? Why would you think it was?
Because of this? 'twas only a month ago.
The site was down from to Saturday, March 22 at 8:42 ET to some time after Sunday, March 23 6:00PM ET while our host physically moved the hardware hosting our server from Dumore, PA to Charlotte, NC.
We apologize for the late notice. Our host did not give us any advance notice on the move.
-Greg
7. Re: Web Site Performance Degradation
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 28, 2014
- 1468 views
Could it be a DNS problem because it has been moved recently?
It wasn't moved recently? Why would you think it was?
Because of this? 'twas only a month ago.
The site was down from to Saturday, March 22 at 8:42 ET to some time after Sunday, March 23 6:00PM ET while our host physically moved the hardware hosting our server from Dumore, PA to Charlotte, NC.
We apologize for the late notice. Our host did not give us any advance notice on the move.
-Greg
Ah, that makes sense. I guess the mention of DNS threw me off.
8. Re: Web Site Performance Degradation
- Posted by BRyan Apr 28, 2014
- 1448 views
When the response is slow I noticed that the client is waiting for a response
from AJAX. Is that being used by the host or Open Euphoria ?
9. Re: Web Site Performance Degradation
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 28, 2014
- 1438 views
When the response is slow I noticed that the client is waiting for a response
from AJAX. Is that being used by the host or Open Euphoria ?
AJAX is used by the Open Euphoria website. We maintain our own webserver, so this has nothing to do with the host.
10. Re: Web Site Performance Degradation
- Posted by BRyan Apr 28, 2014
- 1468 views
When the response is slow I noticed that the client is waiting for a response
from AJAX. Is that being used by the host or Open Euphoria ?
AJAX is used by the Open Euphoria website. We maintain our own webserver, so this has nothing to do with the host.
I don't know anything about AJAX , maybe someone that is an expert can take a look at It.
11. Re: Web Site Performance Degradation
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 28, 2014
- 1452 views
When the response is slow I noticed that the client is waiting for a response
from AJAX. Is that being used by the host or Open Euphoria ?
AJAX is used by the Open Euphoria website. We maintain our own webserver, so this has nothing to do with the host.
I don't know anything about AJAX , maybe someone that is an expert can take a look at It.
I believe this to be a symptom rather than a cause, based on the information I provided earlier in this thread.