Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :(

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2008


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 101635
interpreted = N
texte = I stream through the same pipe and can handle up to 6mb a second - which I have come close to, but not quite attained. The max I have hit in the last week is 5.5. The a/v is streaming fine - though that server is also maxed out and is being updated and reconfigured. That has been rectified temporarily - there is a memory leak in Flash Com Server, though my connection can handle several hundred streaming conncetions. I did do a test and am spending my night doing more. One culpret is the looksups in that search. Doing a nested search is way faster. I hope to go through all the major chunks and see what I can streamline. I'll post some results in a few hours if that helps of side by side tests, which is pretty well what I need to do. D. On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Rob wrote: > Sounds more like a bandwidth problem then a WebDNA problem.... What kind of > line is this on? > > Rob > > > On 15-Dec-08, at 2:59 PM, David Bastedo wrote: > >> Ok, so I just did a soft launch of a site on Friday and my site >> traffic jumped over 200%. Normally, that would be great, except the >> site has now slowed to a crawl. >> >> I have many images on a seperate server, I have just added 6gb to the >> server - emrgency like, hoping it will help - it has - marginally - >> and now I am in the process of adding a third server - I also have one >> for streaming - and am planning on moving everything to MySQL - I >> think - though it would not be my preference. >> >> Anyway before I can even contemplate that - doing that will take a >> fair bit of time - I need to get the current site as fast as possible, >> to buy me some time to do this new update. >> >> I guess my biggest question is on tables. I am using tables on this >> site and I think that this may be the biggest issue. I need to do a >> lot of sorting and it "seemed" like the best, most convinient way to >> do it, though now I am wondering if this has caused way more problems >> that it has solved. >> >> Is it better to write to a temp db and then sort those results, if I >> have to, rather than a table: >> >> Here is a sample piece of code. (I am making custom music playlists BTW) >> >> [table >> name=MyPlayListData&fields=PlayListItemID,PlayListID,Sequence,ConcertID,FLV_FileName,UserID,DateCreated,LastUpdate,FLV_Length,PlayListName,PlayListDescription,AlbumID,HSPSongID,PlayListID,PlayListDescription,UserID,PlayListType,DateCreated,timeTotal,MySongName,AlbumName,releaseDate,rating,MyRating][/table] >> >> >> [Search >> db=[pagePath]databases/aaa.db&gePlayListIDdata=0&eqAlbumIDdata=303&albumIDtype=num&[SO]sort=1&[SO]dir=[SB]&[SO]Type=num] >> [founditems] >> [replace >> table=MyPlayListData&eqPlayListIDdatarq=[PlayListID]&PlayListIDtype=num&eqUserIDdatarq=[UserID]&UserIDtype=num&eqHSPSongIDdatarq=[HSPSongID]&append=T][!] >> [/!]PlayListItemID=[PlayListItemID][!] >> [/!]&PlayListID=[PlayListID][!] >> [/!]&Sequence=[Sequence][!] >> [/!]&ConcertID=[ConcertID][!] >> [/!]&FLV_FileName=[FLV_FileName][!] >> [/!]&UserID=[UserID][!] >> [/!]&DateCreated=[DateCreated][!] >> [/!]&LastUpdate=[LastUpdate][!] >> [/!]&FLV_Length=[FLV_Length][!] >> [/!]&PlayListName=[PlayListName][!] >> [/!]&PlayListDescription=[PlayListDescription][!] >> [/!]&AlbumID=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=AlbumID][!] >> [/!]&HSPSongID=[HSPSongID][!] >> [/!]&PlayListName=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListName][!] >> [/!]&PlayListDescription=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListDescription][!] >> [/!]&UserID=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=UserID][!] >> [/!]&PlayListType=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListType][!] >> [/!]&DateCreated=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=DateCreated][!] >> [/!]&rating=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=rating]&MyRating=[search >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/xxx.db&eqStoryIDdatarq=[PlayListID]&eqUserIDdatarq=[GETCOOKIE >> name=xxx]][founditems][TheRating][/founditems][/search][/replace] >> >> [/founditems] >> [/search] >> >> -> then I have to do two more seraches. One for the results and one >> for next/prev >> >> [search >> table=MyPlayListData&gePlayListIDData=0&eqalbumIDdatarq=303&PlayListIDsumm=T&[SB]sort=1&[SB]sdir=[SO]&[SB]type=[SB_type]&startAt=[startat]&max=10] >> >> >> I know I can make this code more streamlined, but I am not sure if it >> is the tables that are a problem. >> >> Without a load, these pages work great, but with the increased >> traffic, it now takes - well WAY too long to load a page. Anyway, I am >> going through and make my code thinner, as it were - I can get rid of >> a bunch of the lookups above and replace with another search, but I am >> wondering if I should replace all the tables in the site with a temp >> .db. >> >> Any thoughts? or advice? Thanks in advance. >> >> D. >> >> >> -- >> David Bastedo >> Ten Plus One Communications Inc. >> http://www.10plus1.com >> 416.603.2223 ext.1 >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ > > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ > -- David Bastedo Ten Plus One Communications Inc. http://www.10plus1.com 416.603.2223 ext.1 Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( ("David Bastedo" 2008)
  2. Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( ("David Bastedo" 2008)
  3. Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2008)
  4. Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  5. Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( ("David Bastedo" 2008)
  6. Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( (Frank Nordberg 2008)
  7. Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( ("David Bastedo" 2008)
  8. Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  9. Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( (Rob 2008)
  10. Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( ("David Bastedo" 2008)
  11. Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( (Rob 2008)
  12. [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :( ("David Bastedo" 2008)
I stream through the same pipe and can handle up to 6mb a second - which I have come close to, but not quite attained. The max I have hit in the last week is 5.5. The a/v is streaming fine - though that server is also maxed out and is being updated and reconfigured. That has been rectified temporarily - there is a memory leak in Flash Com Server, though my connection can handle several hundred streaming conncetions. I did do a test and am spending my night doing more. One culpret is the looksups in that search. Doing a nested search is way faster. I hope to go through all the major chunks and see what I can streamline. I'll post some results in a few hours if that helps of side by side tests, which is pretty well what I need to do. D. On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Rob wrote: > Sounds more like a bandwidth problem then a WebDNA problem.... What kind of > line is this on? > > Rob > > > On 15-Dec-08, at 2:59 PM, David Bastedo wrote: > >> Ok, so I just did a soft launch of a site on Friday and my site >> traffic jumped over 200%. Normally, that would be great, except the >> site has now slowed to a crawl. >> >> I have many images on a seperate server, I have just added 6gb to the >> server - emrgency like, hoping it will help - it has - marginally - >> and now I am in the process of adding a third server - I also have one >> for streaming - and am planning on moving everything to MySQL - I >> think - though it would not be my preference. >> >> Anyway before I can even contemplate that - doing that will take a >> fair bit of time - I need to get the current site as fast as possible, >> to buy me some time to do this new update. >> >> I guess my biggest question is on tables. I am using tables on this >> site and I think that this may be the biggest issue. I need to do a >> lot of sorting and it "seemed" like the best, most convinient way to >> do it, though now I am wondering if this has caused way more problems >> that it has solved. >> >> Is it better to write to a temp db and then sort those results, if I >> have to, rather than a table: >> >> Here is a sample piece of code. (I am making custom music playlists BTW) >> >> [table >> name=MyPlayListData&fields=PlayListItemID,PlayListID,Sequence,ConcertID,FLV_FileName,UserID,DateCreated,LastUpdate,FLV_Length,PlayListName,PlayListDescription,AlbumID,HSPSongID,PlayListID,PlayListDescription,UserID,PlayListType,DateCreated,timeTotal,MySongName,AlbumName,releaseDate,rating,MyRating][/table] >> >> >> [Search >> db=[pagePath]databases/aaa.db&gePlayListIDdata=0&eqAlbumIDdata=303&albumIDtype=num&[SO]sort=1&[SO]dir=[SB]&[SO]Type=num] >> [founditems] >> [replace >> table=MyPlayListData&eqPlayListIDdatarq=[PlayListID]&PlayListIDtype=num&eqUserIDdatarq=[UserID]&UserIDtype=num&eqHSPSongIDdatarq=[HSPSongID]&append=T][!] >> [/!]PlayListItemID=[PlayListItemID][!] >> [/!]&PlayListID=[PlayListID][!] >> [/!]&Sequence=[Sequence][!] >> [/!]&ConcertID=[ConcertID][!] >> [/!]&FLV_FileName=[FLV_FileName][!] >> [/!]&UserID=[UserID][!] >> [/!]&DateCreated=[DateCreated][!] >> [/!]&LastUpdate=[LastUpdate][!] >> [/!]&FLV_Length=[FLV_Length][!] >> [/!]&PlayListName=[PlayListName][!] >> [/!]&PlayListDescription=[PlayListDescription][!] >> [/!]&AlbumID=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=AlbumID][!] >> [/!]&HSPSongID=[HSPSongID][!] >> [/!]&PlayListName=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListName][!] >> [/!]&PlayListDescription=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListDescription][!] >> [/!]&UserID=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=UserID][!] >> [/!]&PlayListType=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListType][!] >> [/!]&DateCreated=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=DateCreated][!] >> [/!]&rating=[LOOKUP >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/yyy.db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=rating]&MyRating=[search >> >> db=[pagePath]databases/xxx.db&eqStoryIDdatarq=[PlayListID]&eqUserIDdatarq=[GETCOOKIE >> name=xxx]][founditems][TheRating][/founditems][/search][/replace] >> >> [/founditems] >> [/search] >> >> -> then I have to do two more seraches. One for the results and one >> for next/prev >> >> [search >> table=MyPlayListData&gePlayListIDData=0&eqalbumIDdatarq=303&PlayListIDsumm=T&[SB]sort=1&[SB]sdir=[SO]&[SB]type=[SB_type]&startAt=[startat]&max=10] >> >> >> I know I can make this code more streamlined, but I am not sure if it >> is the tables that are a problem. >> >> Without a load, these pages work great, but with the increased >> traffic, it now takes - well WAY too long to load a page. Anyway, I am >> going through and make my code thinner, as it were - I can get rid of >> a bunch of the lookups above and replace with another search, but I am >> wondering if I should replace all the tables in the site with a temp >> .db. >> >> Any thoughts? or advice? Thanks in advance. >> >> D. >> >> >> -- >> David Bastedo >> Ten Plus One Communications Inc. >> http://www.10plus1.com >> 416.603.2223 ext.1 >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ > > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ > -- David Bastedo Ten Plus One Communications Inc. http://www.10plus1.com 416.603.2223 ext.1 "David Bastedo"

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Quantity * price (1997) # of real domains on 1 web server (1997) Searching multiple records for certain info (2000) WebDNA v6 & MySQL (2008) WebCat2b15MacPlugin - showing [math] (1997) [WebDNA] Search 2 databases ??? (2009) Help! WebCat2 bug (1997) Paths, relative paths, webstar server setup and security (1997) [Q] Novice's question (1997) Weird Math and SV (1997) PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (1997) WebMerchant 1.6 and SHTML (1997) Excel PMT Calculation (2001) Emailer not working (1998) Opinion: [input] should be called [output] ... (1997) Max Record length restated as maybe bug (1997) Protecting webdelivery (1997) win2003 server (Web, standard, small business, edition) (2005) Problem with Shared POP script (2003) OT: javascript help (2003)