LQ Suggestions & FeedbackDo you have a suggestion for this site or an idea that will make the site better? This forum is for you.
PLEASE READ THIS FORUM - Information and status updates will also be posted here.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 13,602
Rep:
The 18 hour mark may actually be closer to when the last config change was made (which seems to have helped quite a bit). We do not use Bulkregister or eNom for DNS.
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 13,602
Rep:
At this point I think we have things considerably more stable. I made another change about two hours ago that should improve performance even further. If you have _any_ stability problems or see any performance issues, please let me know ASAP.
I made another change about two hours ago that should improve performance even further. If you have _any_ stability problems or not a performance issue, please let me know ASAP.
"not a performance issue" means you don"t want to hear about performance? I don't understand your phrase.
Anyway, the performance was real bad for a while Yesterday (I think around when you made that improvement) and even worse just now. I can access many other sites with no problem, so I expect the problem is at your end.
Getting a page from LQ normally takes about a second. Instead it was taking over a minute per page.
That happened about equally to a few different kinds of pages: initial page when I clicked on my LQ bookmark, then the results of "view new posts", then middle clicking (open new tab) on a few posts from that list, then the "Submit Reply" button to make my post above.
But right after that it was all back to fast, including for my immediate edit of the above post as soon as I was able to read it (something I usually do, including right now).
While watching the not ready status in the tab handle for my LQ tabs, I read and wrote posts in a few other forums, so I think my own internet connection was fine this time (it isn't always).
I've had long delays at times lately when posting a response or selecting a message to read.
I was wondering whether to post here or start a new thread, but that sounds so like the problem that I see, it has made my mind up.
The symptoms that I see look similar to a slow DNS name lookup problem, but I'm pretty sure that DNS here is working fine - I get reasonable results from my DNS server when checked with dig and, even if I didn't I can't see why the second look up will still be slow - so I'm assuming this has something to do with conversion from text thread names to the http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...eply&p=3436213 form.
And, like jschiwal, I see it when posting a response or selecting a message to read. In my case, the 'bad' delay is ~30-60 seconds, but normally its a lot faster than that.
Distribution: Debian /Jessie/Stretch/Sid, Linux Mint DE
Posts: 5,195
Rep:
I see something else happening, not sure whether it is related. Whenever I request a page, I see the first text from Linuxquestions.org almost instantly.
Then I see in my status bar:
Looking up hostname http.cdnlayer.com (very fast, less than 1 sec)
Connecting to remote host http.cdnlayer.com (1-10 seconds)
Completed request to http.cdnlayer.com (very long, up to 30 seconds or sometimes infinity)
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 13,602
Rep:
I notice that the majority of members still having an issue seem to be outside the USA. One reason we use a CDN for static content is to make the site faster globally. I'll continue to look into ways to improve performance outside the US and can confirm that we do performance monitoring from 12 locations (of which 6 are outside the US).
I'm still having problem that I've posted about in the thread What's this?.I have to restart Firefox to be able to log in.Click here if your browser does not automagically redirect you doesn't work.I'm not sure if this is on me,but since I have Firefox 3.0.6 with only NoScript(LQ is enabled) and ABP plugins I can't see how can this be produced by me.
Sometimes I have to wait 1 min. or more to be redirected on a certain page here at LQ,sometimes it just takes too long to wait.
But don't worry too much Jeremy,LQ being unreachable (for some members) or having some delays sometimes is not a matter of life and death.
Last edited by alan_ri; 02-15-2009 at 06:19 PM.
Reason: adding a few thoughts
I have to say I'm starting to think the change to cdnlayer was a mistake. *Nothing* is being cached - every gif is being reloaded for every page. I don't know if this is just a problem with the (International ???) mirrors, but it is bloody frustrating. I couldn't even use the icons to highlight "nothing" above - it was still waiting on cdnlayer.com)
I don't see anything being cached either, but I assumed that I needed to tune squid on my gateway/firewall, currently SmoothWall Express 3. Is this lack of caching a "feature" of the LQ server, or should I be trying to learn how to tune squid?
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 13,602
Rep:
Images are cached by Firefox as expected for me. Are other members seeing a similar issue from CDNLayer? If so, are you browsing through any kind of proxy that is modifying content?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.