This Server, UGH

[Easy 6]

This is not a finger pointing thread, DaFace has been clear that he is hamstrung when this happens... but isn't it just weird AF that it never happens on some random Tuesday?

Nope, its ALWAYS gotta be a Saturday or Sunday

It's simply uncanny...

[penguinz]

@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.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by wazu

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.

Yes, it's a viable solution. We're starting to hit at the crux of the issue, though. In a sense, this is an engineering problem. We (and by we, I really just mean Kyle since the rest of us are just spitballing) are trying to optimize for a combination of:

-Short-term reliability
-Long-term maintenance requirements
-Ingrained user experience
-Possibilities for new features
-Discussion history
-Cost
-And probably a half-dozen other things

Tons of potential solutions, all that come with their own pros and cons.

[displacedinMN]

I like this format. I have seen others. Like Orange mange.....it sucked.

[seamonster]

Originally Posted by scho63

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.

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.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by penguinz

@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.

It's a reasonable question, but we've had attachments stored in the filesystem for a decade or so.

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by seamonster

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.

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.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by seamonster

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.

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.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by penguinz

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.

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.

[scho63]

So at the end of the day, it sounds like the antiquated software is the major roadblock.

Maybe the best solution is to start a brand new ChiefsPlanet with new software, lock ALL old threads from any new postings and signups, keep the site up for viewing and ads to generate income with a link on the new site, make everyone signup on the new site with their old user names, and then there is NO migration.

All you need is a new server.

Seems much faster, no migration of all the old stuff except user data.

Am I missing something?

[George Liquor]

Maybe we can all pool $100 together to wager on fanduel in hopes of getting a new server? I bet we can be there by Superbowl Sunday.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by DaFace

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.

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.

[seamonster]

Originally Posted by DaFace

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.

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.

[Dunerdr]

I don't know shit about ****, but if we can make this place run better by letting the political forum break off like California in an earthquake movie, I move we kick it out to sea.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

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.

Advice on systems isn't really the roadblock here.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by seamonster

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.

Mmmk.