| Revision as of 23:00, 9 January 2005 editDan100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,095 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:37, 11 January 2005 edit undoDan100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,095 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| (NB, I regulary clear out this page. You can always view the page history if you want to read old stuff! '''NBB'''(?) If you post here, I'll reply here, so check back!) | (NB, I regulary clear out this page. You can always view the page history if you want to read old stuff! '''NBB'''(?) If you post here, I'll reply here, so check back!) | ||
| ==Misplaced Pages slowness== | |||
| Hi Dan, you seem to know what you're talking about on page. I was wondering if you'd mind explaining what's going on, because no one seems to give any information on that page, so it's not clear why it exists. Someone has changed something about the Misplaced Pages within the last 7-10 days, because these problems are different in kind, not degree. It's not bandwidth and it's not extra users attracted by media attention. The slowness is phenomenal but it's not the only problem. Edits are not being saved. Sometimes not at all; sometimes partially. Sometimes the editor's name is in the edit history; sometimes not. Sometimes it'll create a new page; sometimes not. Sometimes it tells you it can't save (page can't load or whatever); then when you look later, your edit is there, timed at the first time you clicked on Save page! | |||
| It seems to me that whoever made the change that has caused this chaos must know what they did, so why don't they undo it? Or am I being simplistic and unfair? It's very frustrating because this is a disaster for the Misplaced Pages, yet no one will tell us anything, or at least nothing that makes sense or is truly informative. Can you enlighten me at all? I would feel less frustrated if I had just a tiny bit of knowledge. It took me over five minutes to load your Talk page, and it may be another five before it saves, if it saves. Best, ] 21:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's the that made my wikipedia life easier last week, hope it does the same to you. With this, you can notice of the cyclic nature and the exceptions. --] 22:30, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| All I did was carefully read Jamesday's comments - he's 'the man who knows'!. The current crap-out is because were being spidered by some nasty robot - check out and look for the cliffs. That's when we're being hit. If we're not being hammered at requests per second are below 1,000 wiki runs sweet! The thing about the edits seems to be the slave database servers not keeping up with the changes on the master. Mediawiki 1.4 accesses the master a lot less, so I'm guessing the slaves aren't being updated as frequently, so even if your change is saved on the master, if you next get a page served by a slave it can be out of date. Possibly!I know for a FACT that this is behind the difficulties in creating new pages - the slaves aren't asking the master when they should. Maybe they should've beta tested 1.4 for longer, but I guess they felt that if they'd stayed with 1.3 the master would've died under the load of the continuing natural site growth. ] 22:57, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:37, 11 January 2005
Hello.
(NB, I regulary clear out this page. You can always view the page history if you want to read old stuff! NBB(?) If you post here, I'll reply here, so check back!)