Server Move - Sunday 7th April

[Ian]

OK - the new server is up and running.

I'm on the hunt for bugs at the moment, as I've spotted a few already. Things may be a little temperamental until tomorrow .

Most people will probably still be reading this from the old server, which is linked to the new server's database... so the site may be extra-slow until your DNS cache updates. You can try to force it by running "ipconfig /flushdns" and see if that speeds things up .

 

[Anon_F]

Hope it was not to painful.
But glad my cyber space home is back up & running.

 

[Anon_F]

Hope it was not to painful.
But glad my cyber space home is back up & running.

Hang on get this up:
500 - Internal server error.

There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed.

 

[nivrip]

Everything fine here.

Can't say I notice any difference but am I still on the old server?

Maybe different tomorrow.

 

[EvanDavis]

Might be a touch slower at the moment, but tomorrow's another day

 

[Ian]

Yep, it's running a little slower for me too when it's using the old server, but it should kick into gear once the DNS switchover happens - tomorrow for most people I guess .

 

[EvanDavis]

All seems to be very speedy now. The only thing I will say on occasion the screen sort of jumps to the right when you hit the " Post Reply " button. Almost in the same sort of way it does when you click on a new post with images and it jumps before they re size. If that makes sense

 

[Quadophile]

Here is the the update after the move. Ian you were spot on when you said how much the difference would be in pinging the site.

 

[Ian]

Glad to hear it's switched over already Quad .

I'll take a look at that problem later on today Evan and see what I can do .

I'm running a fairly intensive MySQL check at the moment which may take a day or two, so the full performance may only kick in then.

 

[muckshifter]

... will WCG need a nudge Ian, seems it's havin' a lay in today.

 

[nivrip]

... will WCG need a nudge Ian, seems it's havin' a lay in today.

 

[V_R]

I wasn't on all day yesterday, forgot all about the move. It seems fine from work, I'll try it again from home later.

Good job Ian.

 

[Ian]

... will WCG need a nudge Ian, seems it's havin' a lay in today.

Thanks . Looks like the old script doesn't work on the new server, but think I've fixed it - should find out when it runs again tomorrow .

 

[V_R]

Just FYI Ian, just got the following error..

Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator to inform of the time the error occurred and of anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

As the message asks, I didn't do anything! lol

 

[Ian]

Thanks V_R, I think that could have been me . I've found a bug that's proving extremely hard to solve - although it's not critical for now (something to do with character encoding it seems).

 

[Ian]

OK, I think that error is fixed - phew !

 

[V_R]

Ah is that why the £ has/did change to a ? in the title of the Raspberry Pie thread?

EDIT: I didn't edit it in case you were testing something.

 

[Ian]

Yep, thanks for the reminder - I forgot I used that as a test!

 

[V_R]

Haha, see my ninja edit above.

 

[V_R]

Just out of interest, lets see if there is a difference.

Before......

Pinging www.pcreview.co.uk [174.37.36.80] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 174.37.36.80: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=110
Reply from 174.37.36.80: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=110
Reply from 174.37.36.80: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=110
Reply from 174.37.36.80: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=110

Ping statistics for 174.37.36.80:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 124ms, Maximum = 125ms, Average = 124ms


Tracing route to www.pcreview.co.uk [174.37.36.80]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2     7 ms     7 ms     7 ms  lns4.uan.the.uk.murphx.net [94.30.127.75]
  3     7 ms     7 ms     7 ms  er1.uan.the.uk.murphx.net [94.30.127.65]
  4     7 ms     7 ms     7 ms  ge2-6-1.crs1.core.the.uk.murphx.net [94.30.127.225]
  5    51 ms    74 ms    51 ms  te1-4.cr05.te1.bb.gxn.net [62.72.139.29]
  6    29 ms     8 ms     8 ms  g4-0.ir1.london-en.xo.net [195.66.236.130]
  7    88 ms    88 ms    87 ms  vb1042.rar3.nyc-ny.us.xo.net [207.88.13.202]
  8   111 ms   119 ms   119 ms  te-3-0-0.rar3.washington-dc.us.xo.net [207.88.12.74]
  9   117 ms   119 ms   119 ms  vb6.rar3.chicago-il.us.xo.net [207.88.12.33]
 10     *        *      115 ms  207.88.14.194.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.14.194]
 11   102 ms   102 ms   102 ms  216.156.72.134.ptr.us.xo.net [216.156.72.134]
 12   102 ms   102 ms   102 ms  tex-x.bbr01.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com [66.109.11.106]
 13   124 ms   124 ms   124 ms  ae20.bbr01.eq01.dal03.networklayer.com [173.192.18.136]
 14   124 ms   124 ms   124 ms  ae0.dar01.sr01.dal01.networklayer.com [173.192.18.211]
 15   125 ms   128 ms   124 ms  po1.fcr04.sr05.dal01.networklayer.com [66.228.118.214]
 16   124 ms   124 ms   124 ms  mail.pcreview.co.uk [174.37.36.80]

Trace complete.

Looks like i hit DC at hop 8, will be interesting (Read geeky) to see if i notice a difference.

....and after....

Pinging www.pcreview.co.uk [50.22.201.131] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 50.22.201.131: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=113
Reply from 50.22.201.131: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=113
Reply from 50.22.201.131: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=113
Reply from 50.22.201.131: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=113

Ping statistics for 50.22.201.131:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 106ms, Maximum = 107ms, Average = 106ms


Tracing route to www.pcreview.co.uk [50.22.201.131]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2     8 ms     7 ms     7 ms  lns4.uan.the.uk.murphx.net [94.30.127.75]
  3     8 ms     7 ms     7 ms  er1.uan.the.uk.murphx.net [94.30.127.65]
  4     8 ms     7 ms     7 ms  ge2-6-1.crs2.core.the.uk.murphx.net [94.30.127.233]
  5     7 ms     7 ms     7 ms  ge1-2-1.crs1.core.the.uk.murphx.net [109.170.249.29]
  6     8 ms     7 ms     7 ms  te1-4.cr05.te1.bb.gxn.net [62.72.139.29]
  7     8 ms     8 ms     8 ms  g4-0.ir1.london-en.xo.net [195.66.236.130]
  8    94 ms    95 ms    95 ms  vb1042.rar3.nyc-ny.us.xo.net [207.88.13.202]
  9   121 ms   119 ms   120 ms  te-3-0-0.rar3.washington-dc.us.xo.net [207.88.12.74]
 10   113 ms   119 ms   119 ms  vb6.rar3.chicago-il.us.xo.net [207.88.12.33]
 11   115 ms     *      116 ms  207.88.14.194.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.14.194]
 12   104 ms   104 ms   104 ms  216.156.72.134.ptr.us.xo.net [216.156.72.134]
 13   104 ms   104 ms   107 ms  tex-x.bbr01.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com [66.109.11.106]
 14   141 ms   104 ms   104 ms  ae7.bbr02.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com [173.192.18.171]
 15   105 ms   105 ms   105 ms  ae0.bbr02.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com [173.192.18.154]
 16   106 ms   107 ms   106 ms  ae1.dar01.sr01.wdc01.networklayer.com [173.192.18.193]
 17   107 ms   106 ms   113 ms  po1.fcr02.sr01.wdc01.networklayer.com [208.43.118.149]
 18   106 ms   106 ms   106 ms  50.22.201.131-static.reverse.softlayer.com [50.22.201.131]

Trace complete.

Sweet, looks like you were right on the money Ian. Must admit, the site does seem a little snappier.