Originally Posted by wazu (Post 17327012)

If we just set up a new server from scratch, Xenforo or whatever, and had a cutover day where everybody is redirected to that new setup, isn't that enough? We could keep the old vBulletin 3.8 thing up under a different URL, and reference it as needed, but lock out all new posts. The old DB would stop growing, and the new server would be all new tech stack whatever and hopefully buy another 30 years. Maybe this has been proposed and shot down. I realize even this is still a project, but seems like one that is about as lightweight as could be hoped for.

Originally Posted by scho63 (Post 17327100)

No one said it would be easy. I don't expect someone to sacrifice their job for a side hustle/hobby.

I think the bigger issue is what stays and what goes during any migration.

Maybe Kyle can put it to a vote - he can propose a few things.

Examples
A. Keep everything the same - no cost
B. Keep everything and migrate to a superior system. Cost 20K and 2 months
C. Toss certain things and delete other very old stuff. Cost 10k and 1 month

With 1 million tables, there are a massive amount of old threads and data that may have little to no replies. Shit can them.

Photos: massive amounts and establish a cut off for them. Maybe no photos older than 5 years.

It's not really bitching about the downtime as much as all the time spent bitching about the down time and no clear path after years.

Maybe Kyle can just say, **** it. It is was it is, so deal with it. I got no problem with that.

He can ask for volunteers or donations or show a plan so we can all help.

I'm not sure what he wants to make out of a new site. Building a complete site from scratch? Plugging some holes? Redevelop current site?

CP members are nothing short of shocking when it comes to pitching in. Just ask and maybe he might be surprised at all the help he gets.

Originally Posted by penguinz (Post 17327107)

@DaFace.... I haven't been in the backend of VBull in over a decade but if I recall correctly it defaults to storing all the attachments, avatars, etc in the DB. OK to do on small sites but not large ones like this.

I know the new version allows to change it to filesystem but not sure if the 3.x does.

Filesystem vs DB will be much faster and less load on the server. Could be a big reason the DB backups bring the server to a halt.

Originally Posted by seamonster (Post 17327118)

A million rows is nothing...Especially if it's just a couple text columns. To me this sounds like some sort of hardware catastrophe that's befallen ChiefsPlanet.

Originally Posted by seamonster (Post 17327118)

A million rows is nothing...Especially if it's just a couple text columns. To me this sounds like some sort of hardware catastrophe that's befallen ChiefsPlanet.

Originally Posted by penguinz (Post 17327135)

It's old software that requires old php and mysql. Throwing more horsepower at it is not going to get that much ROI.

If it was modern code and SQL I would be in more agreement with the hardware being part of the solution.

Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 17327143)

Don't get me wrong - new hardware will help, especially storing the database on SSDs. But it's just another bandaid, and if we keep running this old software, we'll almost certainly be due for yet another hardware upgrade in a few years, while modern software could set us up to handle additional growth much more effectively.

I've wanted to upgrade software for years, but a hardware migration takes 10% of the work that a software migration does (and still is a ton of work). Thus, the ~5-year cycle of new server upgrade that works well for a bit and then eventually runs into more issues.

Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 17327137)

Again, it's just frustrating when people say stuff like this without knowing what you're talking about. A million rows (technically 16 million at the moment) is no problem...for an enterprise-level server cluster with a team of database administrators maintaining it.

We have one box that's realistically not much faster than a computer you could buy today at Best Buy that's largely maintained by one guy in his free time. Oh, and it's running on software that isn't even supported anymore.

It's like saying, "Well, any old PC can do 4K video editing these days" and pretending like it shouldn't be an issue for someone trying to do it on an Intel Celeron PC running Windows XP.

Originally Posted by Nirvana58 (Post 17327180)

If you guys don't mind sharing. What exact HW and Software is CP currently using?

I believe we have a lot of IT people myself included on this website that might be able to give some advise on a good path forward.

Originally Posted by seamonster (Post 17327186)

Trying to read from a 16 million row table should be milliseconds on a ten year old think pad using an off the shelf database (sqlite) with a few GB of ram (assuming your drives aren't 10 years old). I could load up an ancient version of Postgres and get the same results. 16 million records in a database is jack and shit for even database systems developed thirty years ago. You aren't making any sense. If you're telling me that your hardware is too old to expect that level of performance, well then we're in violent agreement.