Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Help keep Vanilla free:
Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Vanilla: biggest vanilla install?

Bottom of Page

1 to 46 of 46

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 1
    i've just migrated a messageboard to vanilla with about 480,000 comments in about 27,500 discussions. so far it's running like a top. i'm wondering if anyone else has done something of this scale yet (maybe with the phpBB importer?) and, if so, if you've noticed any issues with vanilla scaling?
    • CommentAuthorjonezy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 2
    omfg link?
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 3
    well... heh... it's a private forum. they would kill me.

    i know, what a tease, right?
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 4
    It is a little slower than it was before the import. I've definitely noticed a slight slowdown. But I guess that is to be expected. I suggested on your board that you turn off whispers and see if that makes a difference. I bet it will.
    •  
      CommentAuthoradrian.
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 5
    google is going to love you.
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 6
    google is not allowed in either :)
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 7
    yeah nav, we'll see what killing whispers does. people love the whisper, though.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005 edited
     # 8
    Another thing, vanilla comes with no special indexes on the tables (other than PK). I bet I could speed it up by adding a few.
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 9
    yeah.

    i just can't wait until people start demanding the infamous "mark all as read" button. let's see, 200 users * 27500 threads... no.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 10
    hahaha - I know, right?

    I've been trying to think of a way to accomplish that "record the threads you read" feature without it getting ridiculous like that, but I just can't seem to come up with anything better (read: more efficient) than what I've already got.
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 11
    yeah, i've been thinking about it too... if i come up with any bright ideas i'll let you know
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 12
    When talking about speeding up the discussion listing, here are a few indexes that might help things a bit. If I were you, I'd try them one at a time and see what difference it makes. That way we can nail down which ones really make a difference, and I can include them in the next release by default.

    If they do make a difference, we'll move on to the comment page and see what we can do there:

    CREATE INDEX IX_Discussion_AuthUserID ON LUM_Discussion (AuthUserID);
    CREATE INDEX IX_Discussion_LastUserID ON LUM_Discussion (LastUserID);
    CREATE INDEX IX_Discussion_WhisperUserID ON LUM_Discussion (WhisperUserID);
    CREATE INDEX IX_Discussion_CategoryID ON LUM_Discussion (CategoryID);
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 13
    Oh, and if you find that any of these slow things down (or they do nothing and you want to get rid of them), you can remove them like this:

    DROP INDEX index_name ON LUM_Discussion;

    where index_name is one of the IX_Discussion_* names I gave.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 14
    Oh, and it might help you to turn on the timer extension while testing this.
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 15
    "thanks dad"

    i'll give it a shot now. do you want to come hang out and see how it goes?
    • CommentAuthorDenied
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 16
    nice work, other james.
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 17
    thank you sir
    i couldn't have done it without you. *woinx
    • CommentAuthordknowles
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 18
    Let us know which ones help, I'd like to add them on my board, too.
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 19
    i'm doing some informal benchmarking now. i'll post the results here.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 20
    Sorry - was working on something else. How did it go?
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 21
    not done yet... trying to get a good survey of typical activities and their timing before indexing

    although at this stage it appears that turning on/off whispering has a negligible effect on most things. turning it off cuts down the render time for the "homepage", but nearly everything else (searches, etc) seems unaffected. i'll gather some more data, though.
  22.  # 22
    wait, when you say migrated did you mean with my migrator? just curious...
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 23
    no, i rolled my own :)
  24.  # 24
    ahh, fair enough, which forum were you moving from? I'm assuming from your comments vanilla is considerably quicker?
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 25
    I would actually classify his version as pretty slow - but we've got some indexes on it now that are helping quite a bit. we'll post the results when finished.
  26.  # 26
    but if its slow is it still quicker than it was on the previous software?
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 27
    Oh, I don't know.

    They've got whispers enabled, so that definitely slows things down on the discussion list. When they turned whispers off it sped up like nobody's business - but they really like whispers, so they turned it back on.
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 28
    right now it's slower than the old software, but there are a lot of other factors that have changed, so there can't be an apples:apples comaprison. the other software was a lot less feature-complex than vanilla and i think it was on a different host. what host did you use, denied?
    • CommentAuthorDenied
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005 edited
     # 29
    the idea of tw with whispers makes my head feel funny. that's actually quite frightening...

    and the old code was super lightweight, so vanilla probably won't ever get faster than it (based on a similar server set-up, that is. on a honking dedicated box, that's a different question). but i'm not giving up the old tw code, so they're shit outta luck!

    but, really, it's better for them to be on vanilla.
    • CommentAuthorDenied
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 30
    tw was on dreamhost.
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 31
    that's where it is now.
    •  
      CommentAuthororangeguru
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 32
    @ithcy

    Very impressive! Thanks your your message on my board.
  33.  # 33
    60,000 plus comments 3,000 plus discussions... doing fine. =)
    • CommentAuthorDenied
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 34
    itchy - jonezy was an active member on tw, not like the bastard ever went there, or anything, but you can let him into the new one.

    and, really, that much jibber jabber (almost half a million posts) in about 13-14 months by a heavily active user base of, say, 50 people and then a further 80, or so less frequent users who weren't banned is something of a marvel.
  35.  # 35
    denied, you ignorant slut. :)

    Hmm. If someone gives me a dataset, I'll hook the thing up to DTrace on Solaris and tell you exactly where the thing is spending its time, whether it be in PHP functions, MySQL, or something else.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2005
     # 36
    That would be swell - would the data from this community site be enough, or would you really need a big hunk of data like ithcy's dealing with to get some good results?
    •  
      CommentAuthordwclifton
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2005 edited
     # 37
    Another good way to index your tables when you have an existing system like this is to turn on [query logging](http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/query-log.html), let it run for awhile, then look at the most frequent queries. Now place indexes on the columns you search on (where **w**=x and **y**=z). If you do a lot of searching on tables that become large, this can help tremendously.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2005 edited
     # 38
    Just talked to franklinmint, and he's going on holidays for the next five days - back next Monday. So, unless anyone else wants to do some DTrace-ing... we'll have to wait and see on this one.

    Interestingly enough, I just got an email from a guy using Vanilla who says that when there are >= 50 ppl using his installation of Vanilla, he see's his apache usage go up 10 - 15% and it's slowing everything else down.

    I haven't been witness to anything like that at all - anyone else?
    • CommentAuthorithcy
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2005
     # 39
    mod_php?
    •  
      CommentAuthorlech
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2005
     # 40
    apache 1.x or 2.x? if it's 2.x, there's a whole shitload of weirdness under that version.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2005
     # 41
    dunno - I pointed him in the direction of this thread. Hopefully he checks it out...
    •  
      CommentAuthordwclifton
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2005
     # 42
    **Way** too many variables to even speculate why this would be happening on a particular install.
    • CommentAuthorjonezy
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2005
     # 43
    ya i actually talked to the guy and told him to email mark... he mentioned there was a torrent trakcer on the machine and it didn't really sound like he had too much first hand knowledge of what was going on
    •  
      CommentAuthorlech
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2005
     # 44
    well, I'm simply speculating, but everyone I know who's run apache 2.x has complained for one reason or another about either instability or slowness. Although this is only a handful out of the possible thousands.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMark
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2005
     # 45
    My server runs apache2
    •  
      CommentAuthorlech
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2005
     # 46
    weird

1 to 46 of 46

  1.  
Add your comments
    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
Back to Discussions Top of Page