AFAIK, there hasn't been any traffic related downtime since ita did the quick and dirty repair on the code.

What DX said. I have a strong hunch that the downtime was entirely related to non-optimal coding on our part. There's no reason for all those open sql connections. Let's wait and see if ita's fixes have worked before we panic and have to worry about fundraising.

Let's wait and see if ita's fixes have worked before we panic and have to worry about fundraising.

Agreed. On the other hand, while I don't think we need to be talking dedicated servers until we see what traffic messes October brings, I'd also like to hold off on any big reorganizations -- in the form of either new threads or overhauls of the existing thread structure -- until we know for sure whether the code changes have done the trick.

Also, Cindy, I agree with many of your suggestions but not the Firefly stuff. The DVDs are coming out in December. There will be much revisiting of episodes and quotey goodness. We'll also need a policy on discussion of the commentaries (maybe put that in spoilers? Or put it in the main thread but not until January? I dunno). Between the DVDs and a possible movie, I don't think consolidation of those three threads is a good idea just yet.

But I admit -- I have a sentimental attachment to Buffy having its own thread, not just sharing the Previously thread with Angel.

Oh, yes. Buffy should keep having it's own thread. I didn't mean to propose it wouldn't. It just won't be NAFDA. It'll just be "BtVS." The Previously thread is a different issue. "Previously" used to be just for BtVS, and it should be expanded to include Angel, because Angel will be in syndication this fall.

But Cindy, they are NAFDA spoilers. As indicated in the Firefly thread slug.

Whatever. I just think it's a silly and misleading thread title, particularly to new posters. I don't care, though. It's not worth this much energy.

We would definitely need funds to go to a dedicated server, but there hasn't been any indication one way or the other that a dedicated server is necessary. AFAIK, there hasn't been any traffic related downtime since ita did the quick and dirty repair on the code.

Have we gotten any feedback from our host (regarding how much (whatever it is we were over-using)? Are we doing better?

I'd also like to hold off on any big reorganizations -- in the form of either new threads or overhauls of the existing thread structure -- until we know for sure whether the code changes have done the trick.

I don't think the two things are much related. Traffic isn't the issue, but in any case thread consolidation will only lower traffic.

Also, Cindy, I agree with many of your suggestions but not the Firefly stuff. The DVDs are coming out in December. There will be much revisiting of episodes and quotey goodness. We'll also need a policy on discussion of the commentaries (maybe put that in spoilers? Or put it in the main thread but not until January? I dunno). Between the DVDs and a possible movie, I don't think consolidation of those three threads is a good idea just yet.

That's not what I proposed. First of all, i didn't propose anything. Secondly, I just said I think it's stupid to call "Firefly Spoilers" a spoilers thread.

I think we should keep Firefly NAFDA.

I think we should just rename the FF spoilers thread.

I do think all the quotables should be combined, because we're not letting people have threads they want because we fear proliferation, and yet we break out 3 separate threads for quotes, for three separate shows, written by - more or less - the same stable of writers - and two of those shows are dead.

Have we gotten any feedback from our host (regarding how much (whatever it is we were over-using)? Are we doing better?

There hasn't been any feedback that I'm aware of. Right now, I think Kristen is still trying to work out the remaining issues from the server switch.

Traffic isn't the issue, but in any case thread consolidation will only lower traffic.

I know. It's more a feeling that, while we're getting a read on how well the fixes have worked, we should change as little as possible.

There hasn't been any feedback that I'm aware of. Right now, I think Kristen is still trying to work out the remaining issues from the server switch.

When that's settled, maybe we should ask them. With HostSuckIt, we just went along like everything was fine, because it felt fine, and it wasn't fine and they'd suspend us. Maybe we need an ongoing discussion with our new host, until we know we're operating at a good level for our current server situation, or until it becomes plain we need our own. I think fundraising is always good. We could start the requests now, anyhow, and note we may need a dedicated server. But we should probably find out how we're doing, and not assume it's okay because it's seemed okay.

I know this is a stupid question, but oh well:

If traffic is not the problem, what is? Is there, in fact, a technical argument against thread proliferation or reorganization? I feel like we (the non-techy we) have sort of gotten the idea that we can't have too many threads because the increased post volume will crash the database; is this the case, or not?

Thanks.

(And I disagree that we should put off reorgs until October, barring a technical reason to do so. It makes more sense to me to figure it out during the summer, before we start dealing with the start-of-season post swell. Besides, we're most likely talking about a net loss of threads, not a net gain.)