0
   

[resolved] Splitting Long Threads

 
 
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 01:01 pm
Craven,

Okay I'm nosy, so what? But I was just wondering about some of the threads that are getting over 200 pages on them.
The last time the Iraq/Iran thread got over 300 pages it brought the server down... Would it be time to trim some of these again?

Or is it better to test the new hardware and see what it can handle before bogging down?

The US, UN & Iraq III (249 pgs)


... just peeking behind the curtain, oh great and powerful Oz ...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 764 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 01:22 pm
Long threads do not take down the server.

After all we have a thread with well over 1000 pages.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 01:53 pm
Quote:
Long threads do not take down the server.


But they very well may take down the reader! Laughing
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2003 03:23 pm
Ya know, I just noticed this topic, and it causes me to wonder ... my understanding is that the lenght of a thread should have no bearing on the length of time a thread takes to "load" onto a user's screen; I figure that would be a function of how many replies a user happens to have chosen to display per-page. I know that "bottlenecks" can occur anywhere in the chain, and that ''net speed can be affected my any number of factors, from general busainess to just plain heavy traffic to a particular domain or server. Anyhow ... I noticed that the US, UN, $ Iraq thread was split several times (In its 3rd incarnation now), with "Taking too long to load" given as the reason for the split. I never said anything at the time, because it just didn't seem to me many folks would havemuch interest in exploring the matter. I gotta say, I page at 100 replies-per-page, so when somebody says "hundreds of pages", to me, that's 20 or 30 pages or so. No big deal ... it really doesn't matter; but a single US, UN, & Iraq thread some 10,000+ pretty much essentially on-topic replies in length would be a kinda neat achievement. Not too many discussion boards could dream of even approaching that claim.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2003 03:28 pm
timber,

For the end user there is no problem with a huge thread (see word association).

The long time referenced in the decision to split the US, UN, IRAQ threads was that the modcp does not paginate.

Thing is, you make a very valid point. It'd have been kinda neat to have a single thread. I'll forward some details to the moderators that would enable us to do so.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How to use the new able2know - Discussion by Craven de Kere
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
I'm the developer - Discussion by Nick Ashley
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
A2K censors tags? - Discussion by hingehead
New A2K Bugs - Discussion by sozobe
New A2K annoyances - Discussion by sozobe
The a2k world is changing 3: about voting - Discussion by Craven de Kere
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Welcome to the 'New' My Posts - Discussion by Nick Ashley
The "I get folksonomy" club - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
  1. Forums
  2. » [resolved] Splitting Long Threads
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2019 at 12:41:45