![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]()
Post
#31
|
|
Brewmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,233 Joined: 4-April 04 From: South Central...PA Member No.: 1,983 ![]() |
FYI, it appears the "view" counter is busted.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#32
|
|
Brewmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: banned Posts: 666 Joined: 16-March 02 From: Mooresville, NC Member No.: 201 ![]() |
Not to offend, but that's WAAAAY underpowered to run a site as busy as this. You can get a good Dell Poweredge SC430 that will easily handle the load and it won't cost much. 512 mb RAM is really, really, really small given all the traffic this site handles. None taken - I'm starting to think you are right. Invision Power suggested that 1024 mb RAM may be required for a db of our size.Oh, and I don't know why the argument is keep vs. trash on these threads. Why not just create an archive and push the obsolete/old threads (however they are defined) there? Surely the search function can span multiple tables, no? Even if it couldn't, a separate search function could be defined for each archive, couldn't it? I guess I'm not seeing why anything has to be deleted. Each forum doesn't have it's own table, if that's what you mean. There is just one table holding all posts, so moving some posts to a new forum would have zero effect on the size of that table.FYI, it appears the "view" counter is busted. I thought this had been addressed several times. The view count is being updated in delayed batches instead of real time in an attempt to reduce some of the load on the database. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd April 2021 - 08:46 AM |