[2017-02-28] Going offline for routine maintenance (FINISHED)


Hi everyone, BLF will soon be going offline for routine maintenance. Hopefully it will take less than an hour, barring unforeseen issues. Please wrap up your conversations now. See you back here soon, thanks for your patience!

Done. Thanks for your patience! Please let me know in this thread if any new issues have appeared.

What changes were made (the forum is very quick right now)?

Just a few security updates and a bunch of minor code bugfixes, nothing visible to the end user or specifically oriented toward performance as far as I know. It’s probably just due to the low traffic at the moment and the recently rebooted server, which cleared out all the RAM caches.

Ah, in that case you should clear out the cache every hour :smiley:
As for low traffic, i like speed, but more members is usually a good thing :cowboy_hat_face:
Maybe just ban the bots?

Ha, wish it was that simple! :smiley:

The bots definitely do lead to high load. Especially legitimate search engine crawlers have become quite “rude” in recent years (hi Google and Baidu!) and they no longer respect instructions on the server about how often and how hard to crawl the site. For now I have Baidu blocked because it was sending system load through the roof. Not a permanent solution though.

Should not cache make things faster though?

That sucks, i wonder if it can be done that they can only crawl during the night (low load time), some kind of timed block?

Yes and no. It’s an extremely complicated science/art that I don’t claim to fully understand. But from what I’ve read, as the cache grows, it takes more overhead to manage it, and thus it becomes slower. But immediately after clearing the cache there’s more load on the system too, so it’s a trade-off.

It’s irritating because there is a well established standard for specifying on the web server “If you’re a bot, then please don’t visit more than X times per unit of time”, but it’s an honor arrangement and not enforceable. From what I’ve read, Google and Baidu and probably others completely ignore that directive nowadays, and they force you to create a “Webmaster tools” account to specify your crawl preferences there. That irks me that it should be necessary to do that, and furthermore I am unable to do so in the case of Baidu since it’s all in Chinese. I even used Google Translator to try to create a webmaster account, but they wanted a mobile phone number in China if memory serves me correctly. Also Baidu uses an army of concurrent bots with individual IP addresses, threaded crawling, which slams the server even more. I guess I should take it as a complement that Baidu is so interested in us, but out web host thinks otherwise… :confused:

Thanks sb. :beer:

interesting, though the load may be preferable unless your charged extra for it if i understand correctly?

Yeah, the bigger companies get the more they force their “rights” down your throat :frowning:

Possibly, but I’d have to keep a close eye on it to avoid excess resource usage.

Uh huh. In a similar vein, I don’t like how Google tries to ruin the reputation of my site by penalizing the site in search result rankings if it’s not “mobile friendly”. And to add insult to injury, they’re now adding a big ugly “INSECURE!!!” warning to the URL bar in Google Chrome and Firefox for sites (like BLF) that don’t use https (SSL) and have password forms. Yes, I understand that somebody could technically intercept your password, but this is a flashlight forum, not a financial institution… :expressionless:

whats the issue with excess resource usage?

Unfortunately people often reuse passwords on other platforms, so someone’s banking password may be identical to their BLF password :person_facepalming:

There’s always finite resources with web hosting. You can “burst” for a while, but the host doesn’t allow hammering the CPU non-stop for long periods of time.

Ugh, unfortunately true.


yeah, i use a password manager for forums and non critical and committed to memory for critical stuff, but the most popular passwords are embarrassingly bad