Yeah, the static was the only way to go. Anyway, my carma is now -1 and I'm proud of it :thumbsup

Hahaha. Ditto. I got rid of my last one in '07, and I couldn't be happier. :thumbsup

Why not do a mix of both? Instead of rebuilding the pages every X minutes - which itself will cause periodical CPU spikes - cache them. If the page requested hasn't yet been generated, generate it; if it has, then just readfile() the cache'd page. This should spread your load out nicely since most of the time you'll just be serving out a static page.

(I would personally use a 404 handler which creates true static .html if the page doesn't already exist, but that gets a bit more complicated config wise...)

let GrouchyAdmin tweak the thing he does good work

Uh... if one single internal request causes spikes, you're using too much RAM, or too many SQL calls. You may also be running on a 68040 at 25Mhz in 32MB. mrtg used to spike those when they'd hit 400 machines and plot a graph every 5 minutes.

Thank you. I don't think I'd want to fix sortie's code; First: I have nothing personal against Perl, but there's relatively little you can do to make it faster without more work than it would take to rewrite it with custom OS-based SHM support, specialized module revisions, and, oh, your own personal 'good' CPAN repository (Also why I dislike PHP's Pear, I'll be honest). Second: See number one. :thumbsup

I meant something like indiscriminately rebuilding 500 pages every 15 minutes... which is basically the same as 500 "loads" in rapid succession with the current system.

Um... I run 40+ sites on a virtual, with a tube site, tgps, blogs, and I don't seem to have any problems. Might be his choice of host that is the problem :2 cents::2 cents:

Where????

ide love to see the stats on the tube. how many videos are you hosting and such. tgp's and blogs are not a big deal.

I guess you haven't read the thread completely, have you?

BTW, hopefully all your tubes aren't on the same account as this one.

Ping has started ...

PING sharphead.net (66.244.153.159): 56 data bytes

--- sharphead.net ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss :winkwink:


8 63.146.26.254 (63.146.26.254) 164.536 ms 167.188 ms 173.115 ms
9 te-4-0-0.rar3.sanjose-ca.us.xo.net (207.88.12.61) 213.172 ms 221.080 ms 222.672 ms
10 te-3-0-0.rar3.la-ca.us.xo.net (207.88.12.62) 217.550 ms 210.685 ms 211.204 ms
11 te-11-4-0.rar3.dallas-tx.us.xo.net (207.88.14.41) 260.521 ms 258.733 ms 264.529 ms
12 207.88.14.42.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.42) 292.567 ms 294.458 ms 304.195 ms
13 w026.z207088246.xo.cnc.net (207.88.246.26) 93.442 ms 93.474 ms 94.014 ms
14 border5.pc2.bbnet2.mia003.pnap.net (69.25.0.77) 273.359 ms 210.327 ms 210.113 ms
15 davies-1.border5.mia003.pnap.net (69.25.2.62) 220.831 ms 233.776 ms 228.577 ms
16 3560-ge.mia.colo-cation.com (66.28.195.250) 232.589 ms 225.443 ms 234.560 ms
17 * * *
18 *

More like pure comedy.
:2 cents:

So which one is my machine again? Oh right... colo-cation prevents PING IMCP echo requests... I just don't see what your point is... your showing me a traceroute from your service provider to mine, I don't see how this proves that the machine i'm using is slow in any way...

Besides.. I have more than one IP on my virtual account anyways... not here to argue, just wanted to clarify that when people sling around the word "virtual" here like it some kind of disease, I just have to chuckle a bit, because I don't see why having a "dedicated" machine is such a big deal, especially when a virtual, when managed properly can do the same or even outperform some dedicated servers.

:2 cents:

Sortie, send me an ICQ.

Not having seen the actual script, it does sound like it could greatly benefit from a
bit of caching. Also you mentioned it "reads a directory". Depending on the filesystem
in use, reading a large directory and stat()ing each file can be a slower process
than one would think. If the directory contains many files consider putting them in
subdirectories.

I ran tubecgi on 5 sites on one virtual account for about a year before I made it available
to others. No problem. I rewrote the script and made it 10 times better since then.


First I was told that my htaccess file was too big(20+ lines) and this caused a problem and
they moved my htaccess files to the server level and told me to email them if I needed
to change anything in the htaccess file.

Then they said the problem was my script.

But it runs for months without a problem and then all of a sudden it's a problem even
though it gets the same 1200-1500 hits per day.



The quote above is what I was told when I asked about the server being down.

My script doesn't use Mysql so all those database queries are not from my script.
Unless he means something else by "database server".

After Mike sent me that email he worked on that and my sites started running like lightning. I thought that was the end of that.

Why don't you like mysql ?

I like Mysql.

It just wasn't the choice when I first started the script.

that punching donkey is funny hehehe

true, but let's not blame the language for the faulty implementation :)

Too bad grouchy doesn't know that mod_perl is installed by the host and not
needed in my perl script. It's like php used to be in the cgi-bin and
with "mod_php" it's part of apache. Same with mod_perl.

He thinks I'm going to write mod_perl into my tube script!!
That would be great for servers that don't even install mod_perl. :1orglaugh

mod_perl is not a programming language; it's configuring the PERL interpreter to run as part of apache.
This is done by the hosting company, not me.

http://perl.apache.org/start/index.html
The reality here is tubecgi works absolutely great and I'm running five tubes
on one shared account with my regular host.

I just don't want to deal with all the mis-information that people think is fact anymore.
So if noone uses my script, I don't have to deal with it. Hence this post.


These two links explain it all :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_perl

http://www.revsys.com/writings/modperl.html


If a host does not want to install mod_perl just like they install "mod_php" then is it
really my fault?


I've got something totaly differrent in the works and tubecgi is not where I even want to
spend my time now.
So, it's a blesssing to have people stop using it, even though they can. :1orglaugh

phatservers has always been great with great support.

claiming otherwise casts you're own integrity/competence into question in my opinion

but then again, you are trying to set up a tube script on a virtual plan... so you're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Obviously you're fucking stupid and can't read since I never said anything negative
about phatservers.

I said don't run my script on their shared accounts.

:321GFY:321GFY:321GFY

Tube site on a virtual? I loled.

Hi Perl.

That's because you havent used a dedicated server that was weaker than a shared
server before, like many of us that have been around.

So the word "shared" to you means weak.

A dedicated moped, is not better than a shared jetliner.

If you are used to renting shared mopeds then you have a point.

Hi;

Here's the php script you ordered :

<?php
function woot ($d) {
$c = chr($d);
echo $c;
}
$ok = array(69,97,116,32,109,121,32,115,104,
105,116,32,121,111,117,32,100,117,109,98,97,
115,115,46,60,98,114,62,72,65,33,32,72,65,33,
32,72,65,33);
array_map(woot,$ok);
?>

by faulty implementation, I meant 'poorly designed scripts'.

no you fucking dickhead... you brought the name of a reputable hosting company into it... not a specific server setup, not an OS not anything else. .. it was "phatservers" which implies that they can't accommodate you as if the same server configuration at a different host is going to yield different results.

anyway... you've already owned yourself a few times, so no point in me really spelling it out again for you.

Well, you are wrong about that.

I just conceded the augument because I can't over come false information circulating
as facts about running perl scripts.

If I had not made this post it would only be a matter of time before someone
ran into a problem at phatservers with my script and came to the board;
so it's not like keeping it a secret and not naming the host would make any difference here.

You got a problem with honesty??

is your contention that an identical server with identical configuration at two different hosts will perform differently with your script?

No.

And I hope you were kidding when you asked that.

Is it your contention that all host are going to use identical setups and servers?

Here's a question :

"Can the "virtual server" be setup as a cluster so that spikes in traffic/cpu etc.. don't effect the websites as much? "

Nah, if you had no made this post, it would be a matter of time before someone ran into a problem on phatservers with your script and came to the board to slam YOU, not phatservers, because they would obviously know the problem lies with your script and not phatservers.

How does it feel to think you've made this amazing script, and gloated about it for months just to be slapped down by moose and the boys and come crying to gfy and get slapped down even harder?

Ego bruising.

How does it feel to constantly crawl under my ass looking for a free meal instead of
doing something note worthy yourself.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Did you run that cute little php script I posted for you. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Constantly crawl up your ass? Hardly, dumbass, you're the one who came here in hopes to slander one of the most widely respected hosts in this industry and backfired right in your face.. Not my fault you're a complete failure at coding.

people still use CGI?