I would like to propose Scoobynet ditches Windows/IIS and puts itself on Linux/Apache. Vbulletin/MySQL should be practically bullet proof aswell as gaining a healthy performance boost.

Do it, you know it makes sense!

 

I fully agree too

Or at the very least use Apache on Windows, and just get rid of IIS,

 

Would it make it faster? - If so then, hell yes!

 

I suggested this several months ago, but met with the usual negative reception - when will people learn that UNIX for servers, WIndows for desktops, Mac for graphics - it really is that simple!

 

I thought it was Mac for rain

 

Minimal install, loads of RAM, reasonable CPU and away we go.

If they stick with Windows, just make sure they disable the OpenGL screensaver...

 

There should have been another entry or two on the poll:

3. Host on a proper operating system like DOS.
4. I don't give a rats ***.

Anyway, Linux sucks as does any flavour of Un*x. Give me Windows 3.11 any day.

 

ajm - right, ok, nice idea, but are you going to offer your services to port it over and support it, all on your own time, whilst maintaining a day job? If so then go and email Simon about it and see what he thinks about this. SN is running on whatever hardware it is because it's Simon's bloody choice. If you're happy to do as much as he does to keep SN running then fair enough, you go ahead and offer your services, and then you can take the stress of having many many users email you when SN is down.

I'm not trying to be rude, just pointing out that we should be thankful we have SN at, regardless of the platform it's running on.

hmm, maybe I should start a poll to get SN moved onto Mac OS X? kinda *nix like

 

After it once again went belly up a few mins back...please please please bring me some stability to my life and put scoobynet on something that is more stable than table with a missing leg!!


(the small print)

disclaimer from flaming: I recognise the efforts to the team behind the support and running of scoobynet and appreciate that their efforts are as much they can offer on their time/money constraints

 

ALi-B

When it went "belly up" a minute ago, it was because (at gone 11:00pm) we are working as hard as we can to get the new server which is costing us thousands of pounds up and running to make the site faster for you.

Have patience.

Regards

Simon

 

oops

 

 

Webbie - Go on - make him a mod - then we can all get some peace and quiet - actually.... youcould make him a mod in snooty muppets - then you might get some peace and quiet as well

 

Personally I think Linux is pants and Windows is just a different pair of pants! Apache (win or unix) is excellent and far better than IIS. My vote in the ideal world is to move to Apache on either OS but in reality I dont really care and just appreciate all the time and hard work that goes into making this site work regardless of the web platform! Thanks SN!

 

I'm sure that if either of the team had the experience to support it then unix or whatever would be their choice. Common sense really.

Interested to know what "thousands of pounds" has bought them / us hardware wise, but doubt I'll get a response to that, as I didn't get a response to the last question. (whats the current server h/w spec?)

 

Actually I already offered my help in a previous thread:-

"A slightly more positive perspective... "

But it wasn't answered directly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not ungrateful for the work they put in, far from it. I am just suggesting that a more stable and faster platform can be had for less money. Its not rocket science, just about every IT professional knows that. If Simon wants to spend the money to get the same results and stick with Windows then thats fine. I can't help having a professional curiousity about what his reasoning is though...

If its sound reasoning all he has to do is post it up and all us busy-bodies will STFU!

The results of the poll are practically 50/50 at the moment, so it looks like we have a "dipole" of professional opinion!

Edited to add: besides... everyone who uses Windows products (and I do myself) knows they have to justify themselves to the unix brigade - its part of the Microsoft ownership experience

 

given that it's in php/mysql then i'd tend to agree.

however, that's not to say a .net/sql2k/win2k3 solution wouldn't be a LOT faster than any solution on a comparable linux machine... because it would.

 

Err nope. Depends how well written the .NET solution is. Too many people trying to write VB6 / ASP3 on .NET and it runs like a dog, you have to write it properly. A well written Web App on Linux will always beat a badly written one on any O/S.

 

a well written web app in .net on windows will always beat a badly written one on linux or any other o/s. what's your point?

clearly i'm assuming the app is to be well written.

even then your original point is debatable - a badly written .net one that implements output caching will still quite possibly thrash the pants off of a well written linux one in terms of performance.

 

milo the point I was trying to make is that you need to compare like with like. Windows is full of holes, I think even the most ardent windows supporter would agree with that. That isn't to say Linux is bug free either, as it patently isn't.

Just because an app implements some wizz bang new feature of development tool, does not mean it will perform. The wrong feature used at the wrong time or poor implementation of the correct feature can be highly detremental to performance. The caching in .NET is a great boon after what was availale in Web Classes and ASP, but I have also seen such bad implementations of it that the caching eats all the CPU run time and so there is not actually enough left to serve up pages as it is re-indexing all the time - end result? ASP worker process gets re-cycled by the CPU and the whole thing dies a death. I saw an app not long ago that had a 25 minute start up time due to trying to cache far too much data upfront, and once it was up and running it ran fast for a short while and then had to re-organise all its pages and re-index the cache and so it died again.

The caching was removed from the app and surprise surprice the increase in performance was huge. The developers had seen that caching was available in .NET and thought it was great so used it, unfortunately without thinking it through and using it in an inappropriate manner.

I am well aware of MS Pet Shop Implementation and yes it does run much faster than the Java / Oracle implementation. But as they only implemented part of the solution and implemented it for ***** out speed, where as the Java version was a functionality and best practice demonstration, this is hardly surprising.

I think any assumptions that something will run faster on Linux or Windows based on "Windows being better than linux or vice versa" is flawed. You have to take the application on its own merits and see how it performs and then deal with the limitations of the given o/s it is running on to tune things to suit.

 

exactly. the reason why windows appears so buggy is because SO many people are using it.

if as many people that use windows were using linux.. similar amounts of bugs would be found, no doubt.

likewise with viruses... people USED to say "you cannot write a virus on linux"... when they really SHOULD have been saying "nobody can be bothered to write a virus on linux yet because there aren't that many people using it".

dont get me wrong - i love linux. but look at it from a corporate point of view... nobody's ever been fired for picking a microsoft solution. lots of people have been fired for picking lesser used solutions that don't turn out to work well.

no. they're caching incorrectly then. output caching barely even touches cpu time. it is cached to memory at the PAGE level if necessary. in other words, it performs the same as if the page was just a static html page (in other words, MUCH faster than any data-driven app).

what if the server runs out of memory you ask? .net caches to disk instead... and serves up cached pages like an html page. or just upgrade the memory (cheap as chips) and get the added benefit of not having to do an i/o to disk.

the example you're giving probably involved heavy caching INSIDE the application using the http cache object. consider firing that programmer as he's one of the "write it like vb6" guys you're talking about.


this doesn't happen in .net. it will cache the page based on the unique url. there are no index lookups or paging involved. it's a VERY simple output caching mechanism.


this is not strictly accurate. the ORIGINAL ms implemetation went for all-out speed. since then ms have written two other implementations, the most recent of which EXACTLY mirrors the java version in terms of technical architecture, and yet still VASTLY out-performs it WITH NO CACHING.

in other words, all of the features that .net has over java were switched off, and .net still wiped the floor with it. THESE WERE RESULTS BY AN INDEPENDENT TESTER... in other words, not micrsoft.

aside from which, are you telling me it's better to put out an application with more lines of code AND that's several dozen times slower as a "best practice" demonstration?

btw, the java/oracle solution WAS optimised for speed in the 3rd incarnation of testing, and the .net solution was still leagues ahead.

 

I do wish people would leave Markus alone.

If he really wanted to be a moderator, I am sure he would have emailed me by now!

It takes a lot of courage to speak out in support of something, but takes nothing to complain.

I respect Markus for putting up with all the abuse he receives, and still stands by his principles. That takes character and integrity.

Regards

Simon

 

i don't know the ups and downs of all the techie arguments, but our servers at work all run linux, and seem remarkably stable. the main reason i went with linux was i didn't fancy shelling out as few grand for MS Exchange.

 

Oi cool it you two, you'll muppet my thread!

We have to bear in mind the fixed parameters:-

1) We are using Vbulletin
2) Vbulletin needs PHP
3) Vbulletin needs MySQL

All three were developed in a *nix environment and are best suited to it. That's not to say they won't run in Win32/64 environment because they will, its just that better hardware must be chucked at it to get comparable performance. Also, more support is available for these particular products in a *nix environment.

As an experiment I once set up a forum designed for Unix/Apache/Perl on NT4 Workstation, using freeware Xitami web server and ActivePerl, it took a lot of tweaking to get it running but ran fine eventually, so it can be done. Its just that there was no reason to do it other than to prove a point!

 

disagree - i think its a good debate.

given that so many people on here work in it/development, im surprised (disappointed?) that there havent been more takers for the discussion.

plus it's given your thread more replies and hits, so quit complaining


yep - like i said, i'm all for a port to linux given those parameters.

 

I truly didn't start this thread as a complaint. If someone challenges you as you to your choice of tires you wouldn't take that as a complaint or an insult, you would (hopefully) take it as an opportunity to have reasoned debate on the pros/cons.

I am happy with the new Scoobynet as per all my other posts! I am just making a light hearted suggestion for further improvement based on my knowledge. You are of course entitled to take it or leave it, but please put me out of my misery and tell me why my suggestion is so bad?

 

ajm

It appears from your reply that you think I considered this thread to be a complaint, etc. I do not at all. I was refering to fast bloke's light hearted micky take. Which again was no big deal. Just wanted to point out what I did.

in terms of the debate.

There are many more issues over and above th pure technical ones. There is the time it would take shaun and I to learn how to use it properly, the fact that there is a lot of the site which still runs on ASP, the fact that it would take us much longer to sort things out as we just don't have exposure to Linux, etc, etc, etc.

I don't think there are many people that would say that Windows is better for running this software, but with all the other considerations in mind, Windows is our choice.

Bear in mind, we've had years and years of every time the site starts to slow down a bit, a number of people tell us we should be on Unix, or whatever. The we simply get it working well again, and everyone forgets about it.

We'll get this nailed, and the site will be back to it's blistering glory in no time

All the best

Simon

 

Appreciate the response Simon, your reasoning is pretty much as I figured and is fair enough!

 

Simon,
Thanks for the kind words.

Oh and YHM lol

 

I have to say that I have never seen Linux so I can't say whether it is better than Windows or not. I use XP and have found it to be particularly stable especially compared to the older MS operating systems. I have not yet seen any problem with SN that can be blamed on XP, the ISP yes,but that is a different story.

Les