Question about the web V4 server in Synchronet 3.20. I recently
rebuilt, reinstalled and reconfigured Synchronet but I find that the
new web server seems to run inconsistently on my system. I
experimented and checked into Vertrauen and find that it also runs a
bit slow there (although not nearly as slow as on my set up).
I'm willing to put the blame on my current hardware. I've been
running the BBS on yard sale finds for over a decade and this is the
fourth or fifth machine I've had the BBS on since I switched to
Synchro net. It's not at all a high-end system. It's an Intel Core
2, running at 1.86 GHz with 2GB RAM. OS is Debian 11 and there are
four two TB drives in the box (although only ONE of them is dedicated
to the BBs). So the question is, what are the hardware requirements
for the new web interface? I've managed to switch back to the old
web server version, which runs really well - and I don't mind staying
there at all. Just wondering if it's worth throwing a couple of
extra memory sticks in the box to get the new web server running
smoothly.
Question about the web V4 server in Synchronet 3.20. I recently rebuilt, reinstalled and reconfigured Synchronet but I find that the new web server seems to run inconsistently on my system. I experimented and checked into Vertrauen and find that it also runs a bit slow there (although not nearly as slow as on my set up).
only ONE of them is dedicated to the BBs). So the question is, what are the hardware requirements for the new web interface? I've managed to switch back to the old web server version, which runs really well - and I don't mind staying there at all. Just wondering if it's worth throwing a couple of extra memory sticks in the box to get the new web server running smoothly.
Nelgin wrote to Weatherman <=-
On Sun, 7 May 2023 02:24:00 -0600
"Weatherman" (VERT/TLCBBS) <VERT/TLCBBS!Weatherman@endofthelinebbs.com> wrote:
Mine isn't really slow. Maybe another 2gb more wouldn't hurt. If you
have an AMD board let me know what sort of memory it takes. I have lots
of old memory that work in an other system.
--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23
---
= Synchronet = End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
Nightfox wrote to Weatherman <=-
Re: Web Server
By: Weatherman to All on Sun May 07 2023 02:24 am
Question about the web V4 server in Synchronet 3.20. I recently rebuilt, reinstalled and reconfigured Synchronet but I find that the new web server seems to run inconsistently on my system. I experimented and checked into Vertrauen and find that it also runs a bit slow there (although not nearly as slow as on my set up).
When you say it runs "inconsistently" on your system, what does that
mean? Or do you mean it runs slower than before?
only ONE of them is dedicated to the BBs). So the question is, what are the hardware requirements for the new web interface? I've managed to switch back to the old web server version, which runs really well - and I don't mind staying there at all. Just wondering if it's worth throwing a couple of extra memory sticks in the box to get the new web server running smoothly.
I'd bet running it on something faster with more RAM would help.
However, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a new web server in
Synchronet 3.20, so I wouldn't have expected anything to change there.
Tracker1 wrote to Weatherman <=-
An SSD will probably make the single biggest difference for you. It's
not a specific minimum, but many are running on potato class hardware.
I just find that I/O performance tends to be the biggest bottleneck.
Probably not a new SERVER, but a new web FORMAT. That's probably the word I should have used, this is what I get for trying to write about tech while I'm enjoying Ireland's contributions to the whiskey drinking world.
I was just wondering if there was an established threshold at which web V4 on Synchronet became more "civilized" in its behavior. Don't want to throw a bunch of RAM in this thing just to find out that the cpu clock speed is below what is needed or that I could have avoided the mess just by adjusting a swappiness parameter.
know of any particular reason why ecWebv4 would be any slower than the legacy/runemaster web interface, but I'm sure it's fixable if we (or more specifically, echicken) had details (e.g. log messages, specific reproduction steps, etc.).
Likely the way message threads are displayed, vs a single message... probably a full scan of message base looking for downstream replies.
On 16 Jun 2023, Tracker1 said the following...
Likely the way message threads are displayed, vs a single message... probably a full scan of message base looking for downstream replies.
i duno, i tried vert.synchro.net via http and the initial load, clicking the forum link, clicking an area, and then a thread.. all those clicks take almost exactly 10 seconds
you'd think it'd be more performant than that. does ssjs have a profiler to see where it's spending all that time? there's not a sleep(10000) in there somewhere right? :-)
If you want a better example, use web.synchro.net instead. Same ecWeb
(and Synchronet) code, but different OS (vert is running on Win10 while web.synchro.net is running on Linux).
sheesh the difference is insane.. th
can't just be windows can it?
On 16 Jun 2023, Digital Man said the following...
If you want a better example, use web.synchro.net instead. Same ecWeb (and Synchronet) code, but different OS (vert is running on Win10 while web.synchro.net is running on Linux).
sheesh the difference is insane.. that can't just be windows can it?
Tracker1 wrote to Weatherman <=-
Re: Re: Web Server
By: Weatherman to Nightfox on Sun May 14 2023 01:55:00
I was just wondering if there was an established threshold at which web V4 on Synchronet became more "civilized" in its behavior. Don't want to throw a bunch of RAM in this thing just to find out that the cpu clock speed is below what is needed or that I could have avoided the mess just by adjusting a swappiness parameter.
Old message, my my biggeest suggestion would be to use an SSD or NVME drive if you can. You don't necessarily need to make a huge investment
in ram, the VM I'm running SBBS on via Docker has 4GB, and most of the time isn't even using 1/4 of that. The disk scanning for messages can
be slow on some systems/drives. Also, if you're on Linux, you can
check your settings for open file handles, etc. There's usually advice around this for "Linux File Server" as a search term, even though your application is different.
Windows might just need more resources. My BBS is running on Linux and the web interface is slow like vert (vs web.) but it only has 1.5gb ram.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 141:19:29 |
| Calls: | 166 |
| Files: | 5,389 |
| Messages: | 223,239 |