simpelmachines.org is slow

[lifeguard81]

For years i follow the development of SMF. Many times i visit this site and forum, and i see realy many times its loading slow.
Pages keeps loading for seconds.
For now, it takes more than 3 seconds Page created in 3.397 seconds with 13 queries.
Page created in 8.093 seconds with 18 queries.


It is not something from today, or yesterday, or last week, it is from a very long time. I see nobody open a topic to say, so i think it was me.
But after looking on other devices and places, i am sure it is just this site. Why nobody is doing something to fix this?

SMF on my own domain is running like a tiger, on other domains also. In my eyes it is very strange to see nobody cares.
People who is go to post now... FOR ME IT WORKS FINE AND FAST!!!! please stay away because this must be a known problem to the owners here.

2nd, dont get me wrong, i love smf and this community. I only want to say there is something wrong here.

[Burke ♞ Knight]

3 seconds?  OH NO!!!!!!!!
Someone, quick, call 911!  W have an emergency!!!

/end sarcasm...

Really? Going to complain when a site takes 3 seconds to load???
Ever see how long it takes to load Microsoft, or Google, or anywhere else?
Man, if all sites would load faster than 5 seconds, I'd be happy.

Oh, and since this site always loads faster than that for me, even on my old slow wireless notebook, where this page just loaded in less that 1 second, I'd say it's more your pc, or network than it is smf.

[lifeguard81]

second time it was 8 seconds.
but 3 seconds is to much for sure. look to mybb, phpbb, vb, ipb, xf... they are fast.

[Shambles]

FOR ME IT WORKS FINE AND FAST!!!!

[Burke ♞ Knight]

Oh, and since this site always loads faster than that for me, even on my old slow wireless notebook, where this page just loaded in less that 1 second, I'd say it's more your pc, or network than it is smf.

[shadow82x]

Page loads are under 1 second here, and I'm on a college network.

Page created in 0.23 seconds with 13 queries.

[radu81]

For me the the pages here are loading fast, 0,x seconds, and sometimes I do see 0,0x seconds

[lifeguard81]

Now its good, but it is not stable

[shadow82x]

Now its good, but it is not stable

Perhaps you saw a spike earlier due to the large amount of traffic coinciding with the 2.1 beta release.

[Burke ♞ Knight]

Not stable? Instead of nitpicking about a couple of seconds at this site, why don't you think of what I said?
Look at your own PC and/or internet, as I find that is usually the issue.

Also, have to take into consideration, where you are, an what is going on between you and the SMF servers. There may be a slowdown somewhere in that line. There is NOT a thing that SMF can do about that....LOL

[Antes]

If the page loads slow for you please check the footer Page Served... <time> with <number> query. If you see something like 0.102 secs & 24 query its your side. If you see something like 10.021 secs yea its from our side and yes some of our team members having bad times as well, today for example when Kindred cannot enter the site, smorg was responding me with 0.102secs.

We are sorry to hear you are having bad times, I hope you believe we are doing best to serve the best experience at smorg.

Thank you for your understanding.

[ARG01]

It has been extremely slow loading for me since yesterday. I just figured that it would clear up sooner or later. 

[lifeguard81]

Not stable? Instead of nitpicking about a couple of seconds at this site, why don't you think of what I said?
Look at your own PC and/or internet, as I find that is usually the issue.

Also, have to take into consideration, where you are, an what is going on between you and the SMF servers. There may be a slowdown somewhere in that line. There is NOT a thing that SMF can do about that....LOL

You read my posts or not? I say its only here, so it has nothing to do withj my pc/tablet or teleephone or notebook. I have this on different locations, but ok.

If the page loads slow for you please check the footer Page Served... <time> with <number> query. If you see something like 0.102 secs & 24 query its your side. If you see something like 10.021 secs yea its from our side and yes some of our team members having bad times as well, today for example when Kindred cannot enter the site, smorg was responding me with 0.102secs.

We are sorry to hear you are having bad times, I hope you believe we are doing best to serve the best experience at smorg.

Thank you for your understanding.

I dit. Forst time it was over 3 seconds, later over 8 seconds.
Now its good and its between the 0,9000 en 2 seconds. But sometimes it is bad. Ofcourse i know everybody here  works hard and try to get the best out of sms
Thats why i love it.

[Arantor]

And this has nothing to do with the sudden influx of demand due to the new beta or anything?

[Burke ♞ Knight]

Also, if you think of it, what I said, was a valid idea. I myself had a similar issue, where only a few sites took forever to load, compared to others.

Found out it was my PC, and how it cached the pages before the sites went through a DNS change, so it made them load slower. Some, would not load at all, until I changed my PC's DNS settings.

[LiroyvH]

Yeah that doesnt make much sense at all, caching before DNS changes making it slow...? Wha?
Not related to this in any case.

Our servers are indeed under higher stress than usual with the attention we got and get from the 2.1 release. Sorry for that. We do take steps to improve it and swap some extra resources around, but yes: during the highest peaks it can slow down a bit.
We do our best to limit the impact, and most of the time you shouldnt be noticing any trouble, or only very little lag.

[Kindred]

Btw, there is a known issue with Apple devices... Because Apple sucks bananas

However, I suspect that your main problem may have to do with your path to get to this site rather than others. Network latency would definitely explain the issue that you have, which others don't seem to have.

[Burke ♞ Knight]

Kindred, I suggested that, too.

As for Core, Makes a lot of sense, to server techs, as that was reported as an issue on a few hosts I know of, when they updated their DNS and people that were at the sites effected before they did it, had the sites cached, and was still able to get to the sites, albeit slower than usual, while those that did not visit the sites shortly before the update, got the unable to connect message. Changing to Google DNS or Open DNS is a nice fix.

I usually recommend to use one of them, especially, for people that use cable companies for their internet. For some odd reason, they have a lot of DNS issues, compared to other internet providers.

[LiroyvH]

Yeah, no. The way you put it: it's complete nonsense. You probably misunderstood the issue/solution.

Switching DNS of a site to another server will absolutely not slow down the website at its previous server unless that server A.) goes down (and yes, perhaps you still have some parts cached. But that doesn't make it slower: that makes it offline entirely and you're just looking at your cache...) or B.) that server was slow to begin with or, purely by coincidence, is slow now. Neither of which are relevant here.
Judging by what you said "while those that did not visit the sites shortly before the update, got the unable to connect message": that proves the site went down at its original location. So if the DNS still resolved there: that didn't mean the site was slower... It meant the entire site was offline. Offline is probably the slowest you'll get, I guess... And that's not what's going on here.

As for switching to Google DNS/OpenDNS making sites faster; that means either A.) the resolver you usually use was already slow to begin with (and thus not limited to one site: but to all the sites you visit.), OR b.) the same problem as above: the site is offline at its original location OR slow at its original location, and you're just bypassing the DNS cache of your provider (or just forgot to flush your DNS cache...) to get it back online at its new location...
Again, not relevant here... Unless the resolver is slow to begin with: but that will only cause problems the first time you try to connect; after that your computer and/or provider will have cached the IP('s) and it won't cause any more slow downs for a while.

And if you used Google/OpenDNS to get back to a site that was offline because your DNS didn't update: well duh, even if a site takes 60 seconds to load it's still loading faster than a site that is offline entirely and will never load...
Last but not least; cable, fiber, dial-up, DSL, sattelite, mobile: there are providers in every branch that have crappy DNS servers. It's not just limited to cable.
(Note: mind you, i'm not saying a fast resolver like OpenDNS/Google DNS can work miracles... But it can't fix issues that are totally not related to DNS... Like the issue experienced by the OP of this topic. )

What's actually most important here is the page generation times that are being reported.
You don't get that to happen because you use a crappy DNS provider. You don't get that to happen when there is a problem on the path from our servers to your computer.

No, that problem is at our side... I'll "gladly" admit it.
I mean, it's not fun: but I'm not gonna lie about it. And I didn't lie either that we do our utmost best to keep the servers fast under the circumstances (the sudden massive increase of visitors). At least reasonably fast. And that works out just fine 99% of the time.

[Burke ♞ Knight]

If the site went down, then the change to using google dns or open dns would not have worked.
If the site was down, it would have been down even after using one of them.
Trust me, I have dealt with this with 3 web hosts, and even my cable company had suggested using google dns to be able to access some sites that had dns updates. Now, how those that had been to the sites before were still able to access, would be only by the sites being cached.

Now what has me worried a bit, is how many people are not able to access said sites, after such dns updates?
How would one know if their site is not accessible to others? Especially, if the person is already using google dns, or open dns, or a isp that does not have these dns issues. Makes me wonder how many people can't access SMF due to such things. (No, not saying that you changed dns, but as you know, some isp's especially cable companies, have lousy dns, themselves...LOL)

[LiroyvH]

If the site went down, then the change to using google dns or open dns would not have worked.
If the site was down, it would have been down even after using one of them.
Trust me, I have dealt with this with 3 web hosts, and even my cable company had suggested using google dns to be able to access some sites that had dns updates. Now, how those that had been to the sites before were still able to access, would be only by the sites being cached.

No... You don't get it.

Ok, take this example:
random.doma.in is hosted on server A with IP 12.34.56.78. This is where it has been for a while and where you visit it.
Now the host changes the DNS of random.doma.in to Server B with IP 12.34.56.79 and takes the server A (12.34.56.78) offline.
The website is online perfectly fine at the new location (B), but is offline at the previous location (A).
Your ISP/computer still has server A (12.34.56.78) cached. Now you switch to OpenDNS. OpenDNS *does* know the new location and tells your computer it's now server B (12.34.56.79).
Result: you can visit the site again, switching to OpenDNS worked even whilst the site went down on the previous server.

You do understand there is a old and new location right...?
So the website can be offline at the old location, and online on the new location. So "it would have been down even after using one of them" is an incorrect conclusion, as "after using one of them" your DNS will have updated to the proper new location: and thus the site pops back up.

Is that an easier to understand explanation?
Trust me, I deal with DNS changes when moving websites on a daily basis...


Aso when the site is offline, visiting your cache is not truly visiting the website. Do a hard refresh, and sometimes already with a regular F5, and it'll state it cannot load it.

Now what has me worried a bit, is how many people are not able to access said sites, after such dns updates?
How would one know if their site is not accessible to others? Especially, if the person is already using google dns, or open dns, or a isp that does not have these dns issues. Makes me wonder how many people can't access SMF due to such things. (No, not saying that you changed dns, but as you know, some isp's especially cable companies, have lousy dns, themselves...LOL)

You can't tell how many people. It depends on a large variety of factors. Last visit, cache time of provider/computer, TTL of the DNS record, etc.
It's unpredictable how many people can't visit it.

How you know...? By asking. (Or if your site is popular: complaints. On social media, for example.)
Alternatively you could use downforeveryone, but that's unreliable when the site is merely offline pending a DNS update..

For your other scenario:
Using OpenDNS or Google's DNS servers constantly is no guarantee that you'll get faster updates actually... They also apply caches.
So even if you use OpenDNS: you can still run in to this issue. Easily.
... They do, however, have a tool for that to clear their cache: http://cachecheck.opendns.com/
Clear it there, clear cache on your computer: try again. (Note: some browsers may cache it on their own, restart those too.)
Voila.


... And considering nobody has problems accessing SMF due to a DNS issue/change: the amount is zero.

[Burke ♞ Knight]

Well, downforeveryone is really not reliable, I agree to that...LOL
I know a site was down, as I had deleted the whole account, yet they still said it was up...
Also, they have stated sites as down, that I was able to load no issues.
One time, was even SMF here. Someone reported to me at my site that they could not get to SMF and downforeveryone stated it was down, but I could load, and see new posts on each test load, so I knew it was not cache I was seeing.

However, it seemed the person's issue was their own isp was doing line work, and their service was in and out. After they were done, he was able to load SMF and yet downforeveryone still reported it as down.

I never use downforeveryone anymore. I'll stick to other ways of seeing if a site is down or not.

[LiroyvH]

I know a site was down, as I had deleted the whole account, yet they still said it was up...

That's possible. If the DNS still pointed to the server, or downforeveryone (or one of their providers) had it cached: the server would have still responded. Not with the account as that was deleted, but with a default Apache or, for example, cPanel page.
To downforeveryone, that makes it look like it's online because it got a response.

Also, they have stated sites as down, that I was able to load no issues.
One time, was even SMF here. Someone reported to me at my site that they could not get to SMF and downforeveryone stated it was down, but I could load, and see new posts on each test load, so I knew it was not cache I was seeing.

That's possible, as we use multiple servers. So if the one downforeveryone and the person that reported it to you had gone down, but you're accessing the site through another server: you can see the site, they can't. And thus downforeveryone will report it is offline, as it doesn't check all the front-end servers; just the one it connects to at the time of the test.

Imho, downforeveryone is usually quite reliable. It's just a tool to make life easier, it can't do magic and always be right.

[Arantor]

I'm seeing variously slow times.

Most pages are in the 1-2 seconds (server side, not client side) but I've seen a lot of 5-11 second times too with a few into the 20-second vicinity and one hitting 30 seconds. I'm also not using my iPad so it's not related to the ongoing hard-to-debug issue with that and the server firewall.

The only commonality I've seen thus far is that served by 134 tends to be the thing (the backend server has been 111, 113 and 114 with no appreciable difference between them)

[Burke ♞ Knight]

Couple refreshes of this page:

1.
Page created in 2.762 seconds with 24 queries.
Page served by: 10.0.100.135 (10.0.100.114)

2.
Page created in 0.912 seconds with 19 queries.
Page served by: 10.0.100.135 (10.0.100.134)

3.
Page created in 2.527 seconds with 19 queries.
Page served by: 10.0.100.135 (10.0.100.111)

4.
Page created in 3.003 seconds with 19 queries.
Page served by: 10.0.100.135 (10.0.100.112)

[Arantor]

I'm now off 135 myself, and seeing 1-2 second page load times.

[Antes]

Page created in 0.09 seconds with 18 queries.
Page served by: 10.0.100.135 (10.0.100.135)

Page created in 5.442 seconds with 25 queries.
Page served by: 10.0.100.135 (10.0.100.114)

[Kindred]

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 19 queries.
Page served by: 10.0.100.134 (10.0.100.135)

Page created in 0.211 seconds with 11 queries.
Page served by: 10.0.100.134 (10.0.100.112)

Page created in 0.555 seconds with 14 queries.
Page served by: 10.0.100.134 (10.0.100.135)

[Arantor]

Well aren't you just special?

[Antes]

Well aren't you just special?

He's surfing around fast as long as he doesn't get ban from servers

[Kindred]

ugh...

Page created in 5.367 seconds with 12 queries.
Page served by: 10.0.100.134 (10.0.100.112)

and yep... when I surf from home on my iPad, I frequently get banned from the server itself because of the iOS habit of leaving 80,000 connections open at once.

[Arantor]

I don't know why iOS does that, I really have to sit down with a debugger and packet sniffer sometime to figure out WTF is going on there.