The best way is to change one variable at a time and see how that goes

I think that's what this is. We're discussing the variables, heading towards consensus on which variables will be next on the chopping block if we need to take that route. Better to do it now, while we're waiting to see how the RQG and closed MySQL tags are working towards board health. If it's not enough, we'll have something set in place, immediately. If it is enough, no harm done, and we'll likely still have done some needed clean-up in the process, anyway.

I don't think that discussing it in an 11th hour scenario would do much to quell a feeling of panic.

I think it's fortunate that the host is working with us, so that we can say, "we've done X, Y, and Z, to solve the problem. Is this working? No? Okay, we're going to grab A, B, C, and D, please let us know if that brings us to an acceptable level."

Thanks, Jon B.

But I'd recommend heartily against changing everything all at once. We'd never know what made a difference, and what was just panic.

We're blessed with the ability to talk with our web hosts. Let's take advantage of this, and tweak, and do this strategically..

I'm all for this, over all. For example, I think we should wait to code out the auto-refresh, until we've gotten webhost feedback on how much difference stopping the Quote Generator made. But here, I'll add a qualifier of much of what Fred said. Technical tweaking may take care of 95% of the problem. I'm all for doing that methodically. It's the only way to tell what's helping and what's a useless change.

But in the future, I don't want our ability to adapt (like say add a new thread, after our reason for being (in the first place) has ended) to be shot down, because we don't want to overload the server again. So we need to modify our behavior as well.

If there are behavior modifications we could make (e.g. no number slutting, no "Timelies" only posts), and if there are things that will save us small bits of server pingage (like the "target=_blank" suggestion I made in BBaBB), I think we can do that, too. I think it makes sense to attack the problem on both ends - technical and user habit - particularly if one of the temporary solutions to our problem is to not let people open new threads if/when they're not superfluous.

For every "let's ditch Bitches/Natter" or "lets do odd days only", even if said lightly, a hackle somewhere twitches up, a bit, and it gets tenser.

t sheepishly

I just got caught up in the headiness of the idea. I wasn't myself. I was drunk.

But Allyson and Sean will have to take forks to the neck as a fundraising event.

I'm good to go on that one.

We think it will, but we have no proof yet, and whatever the result of that change is will effect the things we have to look at for further changes.

So should we then maybe hold off on housecleaning the threads? At least save for the barest minimmum?

Okay, I am posting this here and in Lightbulbs and then I am not darkening the door of either of these threads again for a few days. Trying to have the same conversation in three different places is making me nuts. You have a technical question, you can find me in Board or via email.

First off. Stop. Panicking.

I am allowed to panic. That's my job as your webhost. I am supposed to freak out when you're consuming too many resources. You are not allowed to panic. I think it's somewhere in your TOS. Look at the fine print. People with the servers are allowed to panic. No server, no panic.

Next, can we please only discuss changes that have a snowball's chance in hell of a) getting voted in and b) not adversely impacting the entire community? I felt like we were on the right track for a while there discussing what threads could be combined or eliminated with as little pain as possible and then *bam*.

There are 34 open threads right now. There has to be some reasonable way to compromise and combine/delete some of those. Note use of the word reasonable.

Think about the way that you use this board and ways that you can use fewer resources. Set your posts per page higher. Click on "Read New" instead of going back to the main page between threads [It cuts one connection out of the equation]. Respond to several people in one post. Stop talking about closing Bitches/Natter.

If people have technical expertise or know someone who has technical expertise, come forward. ita's passing around copies of the code to anyone who wants it so we can get some second opinions.

I feel like in 24 hours we have gone from one extreme [let's add threads!] to the other [let's drive away half our core community!] and neither is helping the situation. There is some middle ground there that will allow these discussions to be productive. Can we please get back to that?

I don’t think legislating Buffista behavior is going to solve the overall problem, and will probably cause some resentment in the long run. I think we need to focus on streamlining the code to cut down on the SQL stuff (which I know is already being done by ita and others) and if current usage still has too many open SQL connections, then instead of finding ways to reduce regular usage we should try and find a way of expanding the board to accommodate the usage. Whether that means raising money for a bigger piece of fangeek’s server, or a dedicated server, or volunteers to help archive threads faster or whatever. Trying to significantly reduce usage by outlawing numberslutting or limiting posts is going to have such a small effect on the overall problem that its social cost far outweighs its potential benefits. I like the idea of getting rid of threads which are now completely pointless like Buffy spoilers lite, but only because it reduces clutter.

I don?t think legislating Buffista behavior is going to solve the overall problem

Cindy (or Allyson?) said it worked at the Bronze -- not that we can do the same exact thing (4 posts per hour). But, honestly. When someone takes up posts 4995, 4996, 4997, 4998, and 4999 just to slut 5000, now it's not just irritating; it puts a burden on the connections.

There's no reason not to tell people nicely "Cool it with the number-slutting."

I don?t think legislating Buffista behavior is going to solve the overall problem

But it helps to recognize that we can all do little things to help reduce the problem. And informal things like not making eight serial posts simply to numberslut and limiting congrats and -mas to posts with other content can help.

Wolfram, are you of an age to remember the original energy crisis of '73 or '74? At that time, there was a lot of publicity about relatively painless things that ordinary people could do to save energy. Just common sense things like turning off the lights when nobody's in a room. A lot of the suggestions fall into that category.

And now I'll go into a corner and feel old, because I just realized that quite a few Buffistas weren't even born in '73 or '74.

I think a "5 Simple Things You Can Do To Prevent A Crash" post in Press could only do good. (Unless the conversation generated about that post ended up crashing the server....oh, the irony!)

But seriously, there's no reason not to announce something like:

As you may or may not be aware, we have been informed by our webhosts that this lovely but talkative board is putting serious strain on the servers. We are working on a code-based solution, but until then, here are a few simple things you can do to relieve the situation:

1 - Post only when you have something to say! This means, keep numbersluts and "timelies!" to a minimum. Wish people happy birthday or bracket hugs via email. Every one word post brings us closer to a crash.

2 - Set your posts-per-page to something high. The more page views it takes you to catch up in a thread, the more taxing it is to the server.

3 - Got your Message Center on auto-refresh even when you're away from your computer? Tsk tsk -- every one of those refreshes is a hit to the database. Set your auto-refresh to "0" (no refresh), or at least turn it off when you're not actively reading or posting.

And....well, I could only think of 3. But none of those are horrible inconveniences, and they could all ease the server strain a teensy amount.

Jess, you're nicer than I am -- I was thinking of "Cut out ALL the numberslutting or else YOU get forked in the neck!"

This is why I'm not allowed to head up large groups.

Every one word post brings us closer to a crash.

Can we not use language like this?

Please?