| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Yesterday's Site Downtime | |
|
||
| Time: 10:46 EST/15:46 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Active Network apologizes for yesterday's site downtime. As many of you already know, yesterday morning the Office 2003 Beta 2 screenshots we posted were linked to from Slashdot.com. As a result, a astronomical amount of traffic brought down the site almost immediately. To keep the site up we had to shut down the forums and set a maximum on the connections. However, everything is fine again. Thank you for your patience. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:01:53 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 2/26/2003 11:39:46 AM |
| LOL... :-) |
| #2 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 2/26/2003 11:52:52 AM |
|
I remember when you guys switched hosting firms and promised no more outages. A lot of us laughed at that pledge. Clearly we were right.
Also when are guys migrating .net? some of the web.config settings as well event notifications might have saved you guys yesterday. This post was edited by RedHook on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 at 11:57. |
| #3 By 8241 (205.189.47.238) at 2/26/2003 12:06:17 PM |
|
/. effect shows no mercy. .net, nor otherwise. It's /.'s ad-hoc linking policy that's the "problem", hehe.
|
| #4 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 2/26/2003 12:20:26 PM |
|
monkeydog, are you saying that none MS technology has 100% up time? I know that you are not, btw cool name.
|
| #5 By 2 (24.54.154.175) at 2/26/2003 12:22:58 PM |
| Actually, the server was fine. It was only running at 6% of capacity. It was the ***T1*** line that was maxed out. We had something like 250,000 impressions yesterday. |
| #6 By 3 (81.96.65.154) at 2/26/2003 12:29:23 PM |
| Yeah for once the server was great, shame about the bandwidth though! |
| #7 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 2/26/2003 12:47:02 PM |
| The small, insignificant opensource community created enough bandwidth to take down a major site thats part of the huge microsoft community!! LOL |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/26/2003 12:59:38 PM |
|
"the huge microsoft community!! LOL " That is funny, tgnb. No wonder Stevie and Bill are trying to get a community going---but I guess the GoDOtNet site can claim we've never been brought down because of bandwidth limitations!
Everyone notes that the site claimed they'd never go down, but I also remember lots of members here saying how crappy Slashdot is... I just don't get it--routinely they bring down ten or more sites a day with their effect, but they are almost allows able to handle the full sum of traffic coming in through their site for all the stories--you've got to give it to Slashdot (and I don't know what kind of pipe they got, but I wouldn't expect more than redundant Ts), they do know how to handle bandwidth! |
| #9 By 1642 (205.177.133.219) at 2/26/2003 1:17:31 PM |
| I think part of the reason that slashdot stays up, is that they tend to stick to simple graphics, and text. For large image files, they always point to the source, which then gets overloaded. If slashdot were to store all the files on their servers, we might see some degradation in their performance. |
| #10 By 3 (81.96.65.154) at 2/26/2003 1:36:13 PM |
| #13 - yeah that is how all sites should be in my view! |
| #11 By 2 (24.54.154.175) at 2/26/2003 1:46:05 PM |
| MOOzilla - yes, we did remove the pictures in order to keep the server up. Also: the downtime yesterday was not to our fault - we could not do anything about it. And we will continue to keep the server up as much as possible - it'd be stupid not to try to fullfill that. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/26/2003 2:18:23 PM |
|
Slashdot has a architecture which is a series of kludges.
The site is maintained by several layers of machines. The front line machine is a cache. The cache is generated every 5 minutes by the backend machine. This cache is the front page of posted articles, along with the first page list of comments, and that's it. Any requests beyond this are special and get passed through the database engine. You will see at times, the main page not being customized for your user identity, and clicking on links to drill down to comments bringing you back to the main page. This occurs because the database backend is not working, and it's in static caching mode only. Using a static cache for the main pages which get hit the most makes sense, because it reduces the load on your database. This is especially important if your middletier is nothing but a bunch of interpreted PERL CGI scripts which are notoriously inefficient anyway. However what's interesting is that the reason slashdot moved to this architecture was not so much load, but because the perl engine and mySQL database crashes on them about 4 times a week, and they didn't want the whole website to be down while they were working to get the database backend back up. It's another example of how you shouldn't listen to Linux people when they talk about system stability, because it's up for interpretation. |
| #13 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 2/26/2003 2:53:28 PM |
|
1.) We did switch hosters, but the outtages meant outtages on our side, caused either by the hoster or changes we made by accident. Well, so far, most of the provider outtages have ceased, but we have made a configuration change or two over the years that have brought the site down temporarily. Either way, it's still a lot less frequent than on our previous hoster.
2.) .NET wouldn't have helped, nor Apache, nor JSP (LOL, yeah right!), or any other technology. Even if we had a raw web server with just the images. The problem is bandwidth, and only a couple OC-3's can stand up to Slashdot in the height of the onslaught, ESPECIALLY if you're serving up images or other non-content. -d |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/26/2003 2:54:33 PM |
|
Will - "the server was hovering between 3% to 6% capacity, but unfortunately the bottleneck in our site is bandwidth. "
Yeah, the "slashdot effect" is primarily bandwidth driven. Slashdot is not a very nice corporate citizen, and gives no warning before pummeling things. |
| #15 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 2/26/2003 8:51:53 PM |
|
Windows is MORE than enough server...
my stats today: 6 Win2K Advanced web/app servers pushing out a total of 25MB/s sustained for several hours today... and the last server rebooted was 129 days ago. The server up the longest is... drum roll... 480 days. And that reboot was part of a huge migration from SQL7 to SQL2k. eat it linus! |
| #16 By 10802 (24.201.185.63) at 2/26/2003 10:30:30 PM |
| mOOzilla - Please don't post an URL like that in the future without a suitable warning. It's a good thing that I was quick with the Alt-F4. |
| #17 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/26/2003 10:31:15 PM |
|
#8 - "If you clustered 1000 servers with dual everything, running Windows 2000 Advanced Server - you might be able to achieve one 9"
Actually, you are guarunteed 5 9's if you run Windows 2000 Datacenter. It's the only OS on the market that guaruntees their uptime, much less an uptime of 99.999%. My Windows 2000 Server has an uptime of 99.968%. *All* the downtime is due to patching or moving the machines. So if I had the server in a 2 machine cluster, I could have had even better uptime. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:01:53 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
