Forum Perfomance diabolically bad !!!

back alley said:
you think that we're lying about that?
just rude...
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is trying to be rude. Maybe instead of going on the defensive you could listen to what actual users of this forum are trying to tell you.
Obviously you have reason to believe that Tapatalk was the root of the performance issues everyone has been experiencing. From my own experience though I can tell you that RFF has always been slow and buggy.
Much more so than other vbulletin forums I frequent, most of which started running Tapatalk when it became available with no issues. In fact this is the only site I visit to have any discussion the matter whatsoever.

Like some other members the performance of RFF has not improved for me since the deactivation of Tapatalk.
 
I have noticed that response time is dreadful here in Australia (Adelaide).

Very, very slow to open the pages on this forum at most times. Absolutely not what one would expect given its mainly text based (with some small graphics) on the main forum pages. Perhaps its there I notice it more as I normally expect these kinds of pages to load quickly. But in any event its sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.

Could it be possible that its a server / middleware / backend issue rather than a "pipeline" issue.
 
There have been slow times in the last couple of weeks. However, right now, everything, including the galleries, load almost instantaneously. Scary almost.
 
RFF did not have that much of a speed problem until tapatalk was installed. it has not yet regained that speed after tapatalk was removed.

We are looking at options on the best way to proceed. Keeping a site running its best with heavily customized software and almost a million and a half posts can be a bit involved.

Stephen
 
The site has always been slow to load for me in New Mexico, and sometimes won't load at all. That has gotten better lately. Now it's mostly slow opening photo thumbnails, and if I attach photos to an ad, I've learned to just attach 2 or 3 initially or the ad won't go through. Then, once the ad is up, I go back and add the rest of the photos in 2 stages. It's just how it wants to work.
 
CameraQuest said:
RFF did not have that much of a speed problem until tapatalk was installed. it has not yet regained that speed after tapatalk was removed.

We are looking at options on the best way to proceed. Keeping a site running its best with heavily customized software and almost a million and a half posts can be a bit involved.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Yes that is why largeformatphtography.info took an early decision not to modify the core VBulletin software or install 3rd party add ons or galleries. Makes maintenance and upgrades a whole lot simpler. As for galleries, whilst nice to have they usually cause major increases in bandwidth and maintenance.

You might want to look at the database query caching as that can cause problems, not least if tapatalk modified it when it installed and didn't reset it when uninstalled.

You should have had a software configurations backup before installing tapatalk so that you could revert to it if you needed to. Don't know if VBulletin provides that functionality or not. But you should be able to talk VBulletin support who may be able to tell you that if you revert to a backup of some database configuration tables prior to installation of tapatalk it will sort the problem.
 
Last edited:
I have turned on debugging for a short while so you can post your actual page load times. If you are experiencing slow response, once the page loads, scroll to the bottom and post the "Page Generation" time indicated.

I am personally seeing page generation times of .2 secs or less.

Also, note the times on the home page vs a thread page.
 
It is not slow for me. Still, "Page Generation 0.37707 seconds" at what feels like a low load period might be critical for a forum with thousands of active users. Compared to 0.2 on a "new posts" search, it also means that thread views are slower than a search, where I'd have expected the opposite. Is there no or a wrong thread index on the database?
 
Not joking but since you switched on debugging it got a lot faster. One page had a delay longer than the quoted 0.3 seconds but generally its a lot more responsive and we are at peak web usage time of 8.00pm in the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top