website slow?
- This topic has 17 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Anyone else experiencing a slow response on the forum?
Vin Maratty wrote:Anyone else experiencing a slow response on the forum?Yes, Vin, and it's personally driving me up the wall, especially as I'm the one who mainly updates the events section of the website. And it must be of concern to others too. Apart from the fact that connection times seem to be increasing again after an earlier problem had apparently been solved, the search feature still isn't working after many months of malfunction.In a report to the January 2014 EC the Internet Committee reported that outside professional assistance might be required to rectify certain persistent problems on the website if the committee could not solve them itself as it had not been able to do so far. The EC authorised the IC to spend up to £1500 if necessary to solve the technical problems on the website, and to report back.Perhaps the Internet Committee can cast some light on the current situation.
I sent an email to the I.C. reporting the slowness of the connection on the 5/4/04. I have yet to receive a reply.
As the work on the election video is now approaching an end I will soon be making the enquiries with reguards to the website health check etc. It is time to call in the professionals.Though I don't think I am currently on the IC.
seems better today.
Yes. We are now running on over twice as much RAM.It's still not where it needs to be but should hopefullu be speaking to a pro over the next few weeks to get it properly sorted out..
This has come at a really bad time. Withe election, leaflets etc. I know memebers will be working behind the scenes
The slow issue is back again, thought it had been sorted.I just lost a post as I was using the preview function to check a quote was showing correctly, as I always do.The bloody thing timed out. Bollocks!
SocialistPunk wrote:The slow issue is back again, thought it had been sorted.I just lost a post as I was using the preview function to check a quote was showing correctly, as I always do.The bloody thing timed out. Bollocks!This issue will be discussed again by the EC this coming Saturday and hopefully some decisive action will finally be taken. Among the various submissions made to the EC is a personal email from myself.
gnome wrote:This issue will be discussed again by the EC this coming Saturday and hopefully some decisive action will finally be taken. Among the various submissions made to the EC is a personal email from myself.That's presuming "decisive action" hasn't already been taken.Work moving the site over to a new server with a different company has been ongoing for the last two weeks, and is nearing completion. It is a long and complicated process and we have been working on fixing other outstanding issues with the site (i.e search function). No changes in performance will happen until we actually flick the switch.Unfortunately you'll just have to bear with us..
DJP wrote:gnome wrote:This issue will be discussed again by the EC this coming Saturday and hopefully some decisive action will finally be taken. Among the various submissions made to the EC is a personal email from myself.That's presuming "decisive action" hasn't already been taken.Work moving the site over to a new server with a different company has been ongoing for the last two weeks, and is nearing completion. It is a long and complicated process and we have been working on fixing other outstanding issues with the site (i.e search function). No changes in performance will happen until we actually flick the switch.Unfortunately you'll just have to bear with us..
Some of us are getting rather tired of these dégagé responses considering that the flicking of the switch should have occurred some two years back.
April 2012 EC minutes wrote:Motion 4. Shodeke and Foster : "That the EC approves the proposal to switch the hosting provider from DreamHost to Unlimited Web Hosting UK." Agreed.If the Internet Committee lacked the time, inclination or expertise to carry out the EC's instructions then it should have said so. In fact, belatedly, in January 2014, it reported something to that effect and the EC instructed thus:
January 2014 EC minutes wrote:Motion 14. Cox and Whitehead : "That Comrade X, on behalf the Internet Committee, be authorised to spend up to £1500 if necessary to solve the technical problems on the website, and to report back." Agreed.In the meantime we've had an important election campaign where the Party has received more coverage and attention in the media than at any other time in its history.Part of our electoral activity included the distribution of almost 1.5 million election statements, all bearing the website address. It simply doesn't bear thinking about just how many people may have attempted to access our website at that time but couldn't due to these technical difficulties, and all because the EC took its eye off the sub-committee ball…
gnome wrote:This issue will be discussed again by the EC this coming Saturday and hopefully some decisive action will finally be taken. Among the various submissions made to the EC is a personal email from myself.I'd sent the following emails after Gnome's inquiry. The information remains the same with the only difference being that a couple of us have been using most of our free time to move to a more powerful and flexible server.Do keep in mind that transferring of our Internet server is far more than our website.Website – Socialist Party CanadaWebsite – World Socialist Party of CanadaEmail server configurationHarden email server securityEmail accounts (including transferring of mail boxes on old server to the new one)DNS configurationSecondary DNS configurationAutomate server backupsCreate/test ftp accountsVerify our URL tracking works properly on the new server.Install a web based URL shortener w/tracking so committees can manage it themselves in future.Verify security of the SPGB website (includes this forum, of course)Create a number of databases used the server (one of which is this forum) …Create, log and track users & passwords (securely). Securely distributing this information to those needing database access.This is what immediately comes to mind; no doubt there is more.Then everything has to be tested. Configuration edits need to be re-tested.Here's the email correspondence for everyone's reference. Note we have new SSD (solid state hard drives) on the new server and can increase CPU cores as needed. This is done on the fly.
Original Message
Subject: FIXED: 404 Error for homepage & Euroelection URLDate: Tue, 13 May 2014 12:59:28 +0100From: Mark Lansbury <xxx@zzz>To: Gnome <xxx@zzz>Hello, OK, I investigated this further and corrected the problem. Seeattached graphic. Someone (Dreamhost 'support'?) renamed a critical directory: theworldsocialism.org directory. It's explained in the screen capture, attached. If anyone has questions, let me know. Be advised I shall be outsideworking and likely not see email until later tonight.- Mark===== Gnome replied to the above message. Here is my reply to Gnome which includes his comment to the above email:On 14/05/14 18:46, Gnome wrote:> What's the latest on the website? It doesn't appear to be any better despite you best endeavours.. Not sure which aspects are not any 'better'. What I did had nothing to do with web server performance. All I did was ensure the web server was configured properly. Sometime yesterday afternoon (GMT) Dreamhost changed back my correction which resulted in much of the website returning a 404. Yesterday afternoon I, again, corrected the problem with a little low tech twist which I hope will keep them from effectively disabling worldsocialism.org. The overall problem is with Dreamhost. I've made a suggestion of a hosting suggestion based on my experience of what I moved my Internet server. It's less than half the expense of Dreamhost and far more powerful. Plus the company and physical servers are located in the Netherlands. The Internet Committee (of which I'm not currently a member of) is voting via email on the switch. Waiting for a majority which I expect will be returned. Once this is done I shall arrange payment to be made with xxx xxx. My plan is to set aside a day to set-up the Party's new server from scratch (only a Debian OS is initially installed). A plan is in place to bring our Internet services (web, email, etc) back to usable levels as quickly as possible. For example the first service to brought up live will be the website. Wish I had a time frame to provide but whatever I estimate will most likely be inaccurate. I shall be doing the coordinating and admin work with DJP checking the Drupal (website) side of the website. I've only very limited experience of Drupal and that was some years ago. In any event the new server will be a good performance improvement with us being able to add RAM (32 GB max) and CPUs to reach a level of performance that works. There is also the ability to link several servers together, but I seriously doubt the need for that at any point in future. So, as best you can, hang in there. There will be a move. The website will be more responsive.- Mark=====Mark wrote:gnome wrote:This issue will be discussed again by the EC this coming Saturday and hopefully some decisive action will finally be taken. Among the various submissions made to the EC is a personal email from myself.I'd sent the following emails after Gnome's inquiry. The information remains the same with the only difference being that a couple of us have been using most of our free time to move to a more powerful and flexible server.
With respect none of this information explains why it has taken over two years (April 2012) since the EC instructed the Internet Committee to change from Dreamhost to another webhosting company for it to finally get under way. As you yourself admit:
Mark wrote:The overall problem is with Dreamhost.I'll say it again – If the Internet Committee lacked the time, inclination or expertise to carry out the EC's instructions then it should have said so. This would have prompted the EC to sanction the involvement of professional intervention much earlier than the motion it agreed upon at the beginning of this year.
January 2014 EC minutes wrote:Motion 14. Cox and Whitehead : "That Comrade X, on behalf the Internet Committee, be authorised to spend up to £1500 if necessary to solve the technical problems on the website, and to report back." Agreed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.